Change Your Image
sgali-51589
Reviews
Crucible of Empire: The Spanish American War (1999)
This movie documents the end of the Spanish colonial period in the Philippines
This movie documents the end of the Spanish colonial period in the Philippines (Guam and Puerto Rico also) which existed from the early 1500's until the start of the American colonial period following the end of the war in 1898. The documentary uses the normal commentary from academics and historians to tell the story. The film also used patriotic period music, photographs, and actual and reenacted footage to add to the visual experience. The film jumps back and forth between Cuba and the Philippines, so you must pay close attention to details to avoid some confusion in the described events.
My character of focus in this writing is General Emilio Aguinaldo. Born to a well to do family during the Spanish colonial period, he was admired by his people as a great leader in the fight against Spain (and later the U.S.) He is my favorite subject of the film, as he was very intelligent and acted wisely in his dealings with his colonial oppressors. He was a fighter, but he also knew when to negotiate, and make concessions. One example where he was quite shrewd was to accept his exile to Hong Kong, where he used the time to buy weapons and supplies for his guerrillas. He also recognized that the Philippines needed assistance and the protection of U.S. to help defeat the Spanish and to keep other European imperial interests at bay. He wrote that Dewey had promised in word only that the Philippines would have independence after the war, but unfortunately he found that the Philippines was basically trading one colonizer for another. Like other Filipinos, he first viewed the Americans as liberators and redeemers, but after the war, the U.S. kept its power over the region, and Aguinaldo then conducted a guerrilla war against the U.S. I have some issues with the way the U.S. media depicted the Philippines and its people. Although this is not a problem of this documentary, the film actually does well by showing old film footage and propaganda posters used by the U.S. during this period. The Filipinos were likened to children needing the U.S. to educate and to take care of them, selling the idea to the American public that the U.S. was merely helping and not occupying/colonizing the Philippines. This was referred to as "benevolent assimilation", and not as forced indoctrination (what it really was). In other depictions Filipinos were said to be regarded as Indians or Negroes. Racism is often used as a tool to dehumanize enemies, making it OK for soldiers to hate and kill them. The U.S. proved to be as brutal as the Spanish while trying to quell the Philippine revolution. I was very surprised to hear that Andrew Carnegie offered to buy Philippine independence, but the offer was not taken. I was also pleased to learn that several people in the U.S. supported Philippine independence and were against U.S. imperialism.
In conclusion, I believe that this documentary is a great depiction of the struggle of Filipinos against Spanish and American imperialism. General Aguinaldo was a smart man that was very politically skilled in his endeavors, all of which was for the benefit of his people.
Polin, D. (Producer), & Miller, D. (Director). (1999) Crucible of Empire: The Spanish American War Motion Picture. United States: Public Broadcasting Service
Captive (2012)
Captive is a film about a long term kidnapping and hostage crisis based on true events
Captive is a film about a long term kidnapping and hostage crisis based on true events that took place in the Palawan province in 2001. This drama begins with the hostage takers; members of the Abu Sayyaf, taking several people at gunpoint and quickly sailing off to their jungle hideouts. The captives are quickly assessed and their ransom values determined by their captors who are trying to maximize their profits and trying to avoid capture. The captives suffer a grueling and tortuous trek through the jungle with little provisions and no amenities, while they hope for release or rescue. The rescue option however is fraught with danger as the captives are often caught in the crossfire between the government troops and the captors.
This film thoroughly covers the plight of the captives, but it also tries to shows us some insight into the minds of the captors as well. The film portrays the captors as violent of course, but it also introduces the audience to their ideals and beliefs. In one scene a captor reads off a set of rules and explains some of the tenets of Islam. Some of the captors are even shown as hospitable and caring, providing comfort items to the hostages (blankets, food, and first aid etc.). One of the captives even starts liking one of the captors, stating the he was just fighting for his freedom and that he was not really a bad guy (Stockholm syndrome?). The film also shows us the realities of the cruelty of the Abu Sayyaf. Some women hostages are subjugated, being forced to marry the captors in some cases and having to endure sexual assault.
One thing I would like to say about the movie is that it was hard to determine how the common people of the villages felt about the entire ordeal. In many scenes the militants happened upon a village and asked to be provided a place to rest and some food. I had a difficult time to figure out if the villagers were just being hospitable to the militants, or maybe they were afraid of all of the firepower and the reputation of Abu Sayyaf. Maybe some villages were sympathetic to the cause. Either way, the militants usually got what they wanted and tried to move on before being caught by the government troops.
The one character that stood out to me was the young fighter that was befriended by the French female hostage. He was a young orphan and fell into the band of fighters as he had no family or other options. He was a fighter for Abu Sayyaf, but he seems young enough that he could change his ways if only he had a positive influence (non-violent). I actually hoped that he would survive situation and reform his ways someday.
One of the themes of the movie I would like to discuss is that of the "underdog". Some of the militants in the film are depicted as sympathetic and almost heroic. The militants endure the same harsh environmental conditions that the captives are in, and in some ways their suffering justifies the way they live. In their view they are the heroes (freedom fighters) against tyranny. The armed struggle (of the underdogs) is a prevalent theme in Philippine films. Many Tagalog films depict the same type of asymmetrical power struggle and romanticize the rebel way of life. Struggle and perseverance are key themes both depicted by the captors and captives.
Costet, D., (Producer), Mendoza, B. (Director). (2012) Captive Motion Picture. Philippines/France: Star Cinema
Orapronobis (1989)
Ora Pro Nobis is a film about the continuing violent and tumultuous time in the Philippines at the end of the Marcos regime.
Ora Pro Nobis is a film about the continuing violent and tumultuous time in the Philippines at the end of the Marcos regime. The movie follows the main character named Jimmy in his attempt to run a fact finding mission looking into human rights violations (a multiple murder incident) in which several men of a village were killed for being suspected as rebels. Jimmy finds more than he expected, an illegitimate son he did not know existed, which complicates his life even more as he has a pregnant wife at home. It should also be noted that Jimmy was also once a priest and a former rebel himself.
The character of Jimmy is portrayed as that of a common man yet also a hero type. He was once a priest (representing the "good", a man of god, and colonial religious influence). He also has strong ideals and identifies with the people, taking part in the "armed struggle" against an unfair and undemocratic regime (to say the least). He is also a changed man, having given up the armed struggle (and supports non-violent resistance), he then focus's his life on social justice and becomes a human rights activist. He appears to carry some weight in his community, appearing on talk shows and other programs to espouse his beliefs. He is also flawed like the common man, having fathered an illegitimate child, but he instantly wants to take responsibility for the son he has just met (flawed, failed priest, yet heroic and responsible). Without going into too much detail, Jimmy cannot escape the violence of the counter-insurgency, and he finds himself wanting to seek vengeance for his loss (machismo, macho-code, eye for an eye).
Some of the issues touched on in the movie are that of conflict, power, and government sanctioned violence (extra-judicial killings). Both sides of the conflict commit atrocities, and both claim righteousness in seeking justice and retribution against the other in a never ending cycle of violence. In this case, the vigilantes are able to act with impunity (government sanctioned violence, in the name of defeating rebels), forcing their victims to act outside the law also, going "underground" and joining the so called insurgency. Again both sides justify the bombings, assassinations, and other atrocities committed in the name of their "just" cause (freedom/democracy, communists vs capitalists, Muslims vs Christians). These never ending wars continue while common people suffer and foreign governments profit with arms sales. Local governments act heavy handedly and the people mostly support the government and the vigilantes due to the fear of violence and terrorism. The people blindly surrender power to the corrupt government institutions all in the name of security. A military leader says it unfortunate and inevitable (violent confrontations) in order to secure the new democracy. The people for the most part accept the status quo, hoping that the government will stop the terrorism (violence).
Another great film exposing the harsh reality of life in the Philippines, violent political conflicts, government raft with corruption, and people with very little options or hope for change.
Picciotto, S., De La Fuente, L. (Producers), Brocka, L. (Director). (1989) Ora Pro Nobis Motion Picture. Philippines: Cannon Films
Baler (2008)
A historical drama based on a siege of a church occupied by Spanish soldiers.
A historical drama based on a siege of a church occupied by Spanish soldiers. Outside, among the Filipinos looking to defeat the Spanish, a woman waits. Inside her love also waits. Both are wondering if and when they will ever be together again. This film gives us another look at life during the Philippine revolution.
There are many characters in the movie that I wish to discuss. I can't see focusing on just one. Celso Resurrreccion, is a perfect example of being caught up between sides in a war. He is half Spanish and half "Indio" (as he was referred to in the movie"). He is a soldier for the Spanish army, but in love with a local Filipina girl. His loyalty for his unit and his love for his woman is at odds, as her father fights against the Spanish and is one of the leaders in the siege. Celso makes forays from the church on high risk missions to get provisions (and to see his love), but his loyalty is questions when he is caught leaving without cause. His character is conflicted, but his love remains unquestioned. He loves his woman and will stop at nothing to be with her (an admirable quality). Mr. Reyes is also of interest to me because his character is of a strong and uncompromising man. Having been victimized by the Spanish in the past, he hates them with a passion and has no qualms about destroying his enemies. I felt his angst and actually felt sorry for him when he took a hard line against the wishes of his children. He does soften up a little for his son and grandson, but he does not change his stance or his beliefs.
One of the issues I want to further look at is that of love and conviction. Mr. Reyes is strong in his beliefs and will just about disown his children rather than compromise his position. In the end though, Mr. Reyes still loves his children. His son Gabriel is also strong willed, willing to join the priesthood, against his father's wishes. His love of god/religion is strong. Our couples love is also strong, neither willing to give up on love and both able to forsake all others in the name of love, even against warring parties. Another issue I wanted to mention is that of power and control in relation to religion. Some people believe that religion is a social construct designed to hold power over people. Gabriel wanted to join the priests of the church (Spanish Catholicism). His father railed against the idea, saying that his son was being used by the friars and that his son had fallen for their lies. Mr. Reyes saw the Catholic Church as many others did, as a form of social control and tool for assimilation to the Spanish empire.
In conclusion, I enjoyed this period film that shows how complicated love and family dynamics can be during a war. As in all wars, families can be torn apart and destroyed by war. I wish it wasn't a romantic tragedy, and I wish that love would conquer all in the end, but unfortunately this film is based on real events and not a fairy tale with a guaranteed happy ending where everyone lives happily ever after.
Del Rosario, V., Rosario-Corpus, V., Genuino, E., Go, H., Rufino, J., Del Rosario, V. (Producers), Meily, M. (Director). (2008) Baler Motion Picture. Philippines: VIVA Films
Amigo (2010)
The movie Amigo gives us a glimpse of life in a barrio that is caught up between sides of a war in 1900 during the Philippine revolution against U.S. rule.
The movie Amigo gives us a glimpse of life in a barrio that is caught up between sides of a war that is happening right there in front of them. It takes place in 1900 during the Philippine revolution against U.S. rule. After having just defeated the Spanish, Filipino revolutionaries led by General Emilio Aguinaldo are being sought by U.S. troops. The U.S. troops arrive in the idyllic barrio while on this expedition, causing great turmoil for its inhabitants. The film exhibits a lot of the contrasts of life (yin and yang). The peaceful barrio versus war and violence, the simple ways of people versus the political complexities of loyalty, racism, and hegemony. The film is also very well balanced in the way it provides characters on all sides of the conflict, (U.S. troops, revolutionaries, common people, and even Spanish) showing each point of view. The languages used in the film are also balanced with parts in English and Tagalog (subtitled).
The character I want to focus on in this writing is that of the barrio "head-man" Rafael. He is the town boss (like a public official or representative) that is caught up between serving the people of his barrio and the forces of both sides of this conflict. He is depicted as a fair and trusted man, having to settle barrio disputes. The people look to him as a counselor also, asking advice on what to do about the Americans. Rafael is caught in a terrible position, as he represents the people to the U.S. troops, and needs to appear cooperative to prevent their heavy handed brutality. His loyalty may then be suspect however, as his brother is a revolutionary and does not want the U.S. assisted in any way. In fact collaboration is punishable by death. In one scene, he is instructed by rebel forces to be an "inside man" and spy for them. Unfortunately for Rafael this "catch 22" situation does not end well for him, making him detestable to both sides. This reminds me of the statement "damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Some of the themes of the movie I would like to discuss are about power, conflict, racism, and social justice. The film makes clear that the fight against imperial power is just. The revolution appeared to be widely accepted by the people, none of which "sold out" the location of the rebels' hideout. As for conflict, I got the message from the film about how war is justified over and over and how the same reasons are used to make war more acceptable with statements like "we are keeping the people safe", or "we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people". We still hear these statements in wars today. In one scene, father Hidalgo refers to the Filipinos as children (again, justification for social dominance). This is a form of racism, but slightly more subtle than the colonel that referred to the people as monkeys. As for social justice, in another scene, a woman stated she did not mind if the U.S. was in power, because they would divide up the land (from more wealthy land owners) and give it out to everyone (allowing her to have more land).
I enjoyed and appreciated this film in spite of the ironic ending. Thank you.
Renzi, M.; Ontal, M.; Torre, J. (Producers), Sayles, J. (Director). (2010) Amigo Motion Picture. United States: Variance Films
Anak (2000)
This film tells the tale of a Filipino family struggling with a very real situation of having a family member working overseas
This film tells the tale of a Filipino family struggling with a very real situation of having a family member working overseas in order to make ends meet. This issue hits close to home for me, as I have a few relatives that are in this same situation, working in the U.S. and elsewhere to send money to family back in the Philippines. In this movie, the problem of having an alienated family member is exacerbated by the death of the main character's husband. Josie (the mom) returns to the Philippines to find that her older children have grown up without her and that their relationships may have been irreparably harmed by her years spent abroad working to provide for them. The acting and some of the scenes were very strong and emotional and I felt really bad for what the characters were going through.
I would like to discuss the main character Josie, and her decision to work overseas. In one scene, she refers to herself and her OFW (overseas Filipino worker) friends as the heroes of their time. She is indeed a hero in my book, as she has suffered greatly for the benefit of her family. She also does a great job in exposing the unfair characterization of her and other female OFW's from people that stand in judgment of their decision to work abroad. In one scene, she questions why a man is revered for working to provide for his family, yet a woman is scorned for doing the same and she is admonished for abandoning her children and other family duties (more or stronger traditional gender roles in the Philippines probably).
The film is a great example of the hardships that families must face when a family member (especially a parent) has to work overseas in order to send money home to support them. This is a big issue in the Philippines as over 2 million people work overseas in order to do just that (Caguio and Lomboy, 2014). The movie illustrates the suffering of the laborers having to work for people in almost slave like conditions, where the employer has all of the power, even controlling the passport of the worker and locking her in the house, so she can't leave without their say so. This is more than exploitation, this is illegal servitude. The movie also brings to light the possible outcomes of the children left behind when a parent leaves to work overseas. Feelings of abandonment, and loss, can lead the children to seek out other options to fill the void of emptiness left behind when a parent leaves. The character of Carla (daughter) has her vices (alcohol, sex, and drugs) to fill her time and numb her pain. She does not wait around to be abandoned anymore; in fact she is empowered by leaving her boyfriends at a moment's notice, stating that she would rather be the one leaving than be the one being left behind. Of course, the main issue is the economy that necessitates the leaving of the OFW's. Pervasive poverty and the poor economic situation in the Philippines cause many to leave their homeland. If not for the hard conditions and lack of employment at home, the OFW's would not have to leave in the first place.
In conclusion, I enjoyed this movie and have learned a lot about the plight of OFW's and the families they leave behind.
Caguio, R., & Lomboy, O. (2014). Understanding How Overseas Filipino Workers Engage on National Issues in Pinoy OFW Facebook Page. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 155, 417-421. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.315 Santos-Concio, C.; DeGuzman, M.; Lasaten, J. (Producers), Quintos, R. (Director). (2000) Anak Motion Picture. Philippines: Star Cinema Films
Independent Lens: Imelda (2003)
This documentary chronicles the extraordinary and imeldific life of Imelda Marcos
This documentary chronicles the extraordinary and "imeldific" life of Imelda Marcos. The words opulent, lavish, and luxurious were not strong enough to describe her lifestyle, so another word had to be invented to describe her status. She led a life almost impossible to imagine. If not for documentaries like this that can provide us with the details of her extravagance, most of the students in this class might not believe the story. Besides wealth, Imelda also amassed great political power. She was known worldwide and had numerous interactions with various heads of state and other powerful people (like the pope). The film dealt with her history by sharing anecdotes, showing film clips, and through interviews with several people. The filmmaker had an incredible amount of cooperation from the Marcos family in creating this film. Interviews with two of the Marcos children, Imelda herself, and several other friends and family members were used to tell her tale. She had a lot of ups and downs through life from surviving the Japanese occupation, to becoming the "first lady" (and also a governor). She survived an assassination attempt. She also went from the palace into exile and later returned to the Philippines. Again, there were so many ups and downs, and again she led a very remarkable and ambitious life.
The film was a fair portrayal, allowing Mrs. Marcos to tell her side of the story. The film also questioned her role in several scandals such as the construction accidents involved in the hurried making of her building projects, and the Aquino assassination. Imelda has an explanation for every controversy. She mentioned that she is often misunderstood. The film confronts her on these issues, and the perceptions that people have, but she explains that her perceptions are different as she sees things in their totality (unlike the rest of us). Imelda was also enigmatic in her views, and in a few scenes she was quite philosophical in explaining the world, the universe, and her place in it. I had a difficult time trying to follow her logic in order to make sense of it all, but I bet I am not the only one having this problem.
Some of the issues discussed in the movie were the abject poverty that people lived in, while the Marcos's were swimming in wealth. The majority of people lived in poor housing conditions and lacked basic needs. Imelda chose to ignore their plight, and spend government money on fancy new buildings in order to bring forth the culture and arts that she felt they needed. She saw herself as a generous and giving person. When asked about her clothes and shoes, she stated that she was a role model and that she gave poor people and example and set a goal for them to achieve (to be like her). She further stated that people lived vicariously through her and wanted her to live that way. Other issues discussed involved corruption, media suppression, voter fraud, martial law, and the violation of basic human rights (while jailing dissenters). Mrs. Marcos denies such accusations in her normal delusional way, stating that there were no human rights violation complaints ever made against her or her husband's office.
Imelda had a remarkable ambition that could have done so much more for her people.
Diaz, R. (Producer), Diaz, R. (Director). (2003) Imelda Motion Picture. Philippines: United Pictures
A Dangerous Life (1988)
A Dangerous Life indeed. The title of this movie describes life in the Philippines during the reign of Ferdinand Marcos.
A Dangerous Life indeed. The title of this movie describes life in the Philippines during the reign of Ferdinand Marcos. It was the best and worst of times. A great time of power and wealth if you were one of his cronies, but also dangerous if you ever crossed him or were perceived as a threat. The film is not balanced in any way in its portrayal of characters or of history. The Marcos regime is remembered for all of the bad reasons, and although I am not a supporter of them, there are still many Marcos supporters out there, even to this day.
There are many characters in this film that I would like to discuss. The first character I want to focus on is President Marcos. He is depicted as a powerful despot. He is charismatic, but also cruel and manipulative. He must have been highly skilled (in his lifetime) in order to gain control over such a diverse nation, but the film failed to show this. The film did not go into detail about how the President came to power, and in many scenes he seems at a loss, and unsure of what to do next. The next character I want to mention is Imelda Marcos. She is portrayed as more stable and focused than her husband. She seems to be the power broker "advising" her husband (pulling the strings like a puppeteer) and dealing directly with people (herself) to get things done. She is also highly manipulative and calculating like her husband. Corazon Aquino on the other hand is the direct opposite of the Marcos's. She is portrayed as a simple housewife (derogated by Imelda for being simple). She seems sincere and caring. She takes on the benevolent mission of her assassinated husband to seek and end to corruption and return the government to the common people of the Philippines. Her character (as portrayed) is so good (benevolent) that she seems to lack some basic and expected motives. She does not seek vengeance for the loss of her husband, (she does not seek to arrest or to destroy the Marcos's) and in one scene she even prays for her husband's former jailer.
An issue I would like to discuss, is that of the U.S. involvement in the support of the Marcos regime. The movie made it clear that the U.S. was complicit in its support of President Marcos even while aware of the human rights violations perpetrated by his government. According to the movie the U.S. needed strategic military bases in the Philippines in order to support its military power in the Asia/Pacific region. Many news clips were used to support the movies stance, including statements of various U.S. government officials, praising and supporting the Marcos's during their ouster. Other news clips supported the U.S. narrative regarding the Philippines and the Marcos's calling the regime a friend of the U.S. and a "democratic" government (ignoring widespread election fraud/tampering). This is how the U.S. makes its support for despotism more palatable for the U.S. public.
In conclusion, I enjoyed this movie for what it was, a drama mixed in with some political history. Some people may need the added story lines and back stories of the characters to make the overall movie more interesting, but I did not as I already enjoy history and political science (my two favorite subjects of study).
McElroy, H. (Producer), Markowitz, R. (Director). (1988) A Dangerous Life Motion Picture. Philippines: HBO
Ilo Ilo (2013)
This film is about a Filipina named Terry, working as a domestic helper in Singapore, and the family that she works for
This film is about a Filipina OFW (Overseas Filipino Worker) named Terry, working as a domestic helper in Singapore, and the family that she works for. Like many other OFW's, Terry is in a strange land with different customs and languages. The family and Terry communicate in English, but the movie contains the native languages of all parties involved (English subtitled). Like many OFW's Terry suffers through some indignities mostly at the hand of her employer and her son. She endures hard work and disrespect so she can send money back to family in the Philippines, especially to take care of her son that was left behind.
There are so many characters in the film that I would like to discuss, each have their own quirks and make the movie interesting. Not surprisingly to me the most normal person in the film is the domestic helper Terry. I identify with her more than the wealthy (or formerly wealthy) employers or their lottery addicted delinquent son. Terry is a hard working first time OFW, trying to earn money in order to support a child back home. She endures a lot of adversity in her job, first a troublesome young ward that she takes care of, then his sometimes overbearing mom. She discovers some of the problems associated with other OFW's. Her employer asks to hold her passport (for safekeeping I'm sure) and threatens to call the police on her when she returns late from a shopping trip. She also has a problem back home that she learns about over a long distance call, but being so far away the only thing she can do is work even harder to send back more money. Her character is portrayed as smart, hard-working, and persevering.
The film is another great example of the hardships and problems OFW's face while working overseas. OFW's face racism, withheld passports, financial exploitation (Terry was offered lower than advertised wages at the hair salon based on who she was), and live under the threat of police/arrest. These asymmetrical power relationships are common among OFW's and their employers (prime for exploitation). She was also made to eat outside during a large gathering of her employers' extended family (racism, class-ism). This film also presents the story from a somewhat different angle, allowing the viewer into the life of the employer family as well. The show depicts a family with more than enough resources (they can afford a maid), until the father loses his job and over a hundred thousand (dollars?) in the stock market. The son becomes a more likable character as he warms up to Terry, and even feels the loss when she is later released from her employment. Even though the employers are really not bad people, the film skillfully played with the obvious culture clash between Singapore and the Philippines. Terry is looked at funny when praying before dinner (Catholicism), and later made to participate in a Buddhist type graveside prayer with her employers. Terry also provides the son some physical disciplining (slapping him once) and also gave other guidance, an area where his parents lacked fortitude and consistency. I can't speak for Singaporeans, but I suspect Filipino parents are more strict and authoritarian.
Another great film with strong and convincing actors that actually had me feeling for them in their separate situations.
Hwee Sim, A., Chen, A., Hadi, W. (Producers), Chen, A. (Director). (2013) Ilo Ilo Motion Picture. Singapore: Memento Films International
Metro Manila (2013)
Metro Manila is a film about a military veteran and his family that move to Manila after failing at rice farming
Metro Manila is a film about a military veteran and his family that move to Manila after failing to eke out a living farming rice in the Banaue province. The move to Manila seems like the best option as they hope to find work to support two children. Manila seems magical at first, the city lights, and so many people. The young daughter asks if one of the beautiful buildings is where people go when they die (heaven). Unfortunately the move is beset with problems, from falling for a rental scam and losing all of their savings to various other problems in finding employment. The young couple soon find themselves living in a slum and realize that the move to Manila may be a big mistake.
The character I want to discuss is the Oscar the father and military vet that is eventually hired as an armored truck driver. He is portrayed as a simple and honest man. He is very hard working and dedicated to providing for his family. His veteran status is what gets him in the door for the job interview as an armored truck driver. His coworkers laugh when they find out that he was a farmer (city life vs rural life). Oscar is a desperate man, but hopeful. He is later placed into an even more desperate situation, feeling obligated to his supervisor and friend who drags him into a doomed plot. Oscar is pulled in two directions (yin yang, good/evil). Oscar is a moral man, but his ideals are tested in the desperate situation he is in. Opposite Oscar is the supervisor Ong. At first Ong seems generous and caring. He gives Oscar hints on how to get the job and also feeds and clothes Oscar (advances on his first paycheck). Ong however has ulterior motives. He is not a moral man. He keeps a mistress on the side. He seems professional, but then we find out that he is an opportunist and is grooming Oscar for a criminal plot (manipulation).
This film shows the dichotomy in life in Metro Manila as well as that of the Philippines. The city is large, but the individual so small. The city can be beautiful at times and yet also ugly. The provinces can be simple and peaceful, but the family witnesses a kidnapping on the streets of Manila (violence and complications). In the city, there are large malls, filled with nice things to buy, but there are the poor people that can't afford to shop in these stores. There are nice buildings but there are also a lot of people living in nearby slums. The family is from a moral and religious background, but they are forced into immoral situations (robbery plot, sexual exploitation, hostess bar work) in order to feed their family. The examples in the film are endless.
From the province to the metropolis, in this film is like going from the frying pan and into the fire. A tragic tale of love, family, and the sacrifices (and risk) people will take in order to provide for their children. These themes are well known in Philippine cinema.
Charpentier, M., Ellis, S. (Producers), Ellis, S. (Director). (2013) Metro Manila Motion Picture. Philippines/United Kingdom: Chocolate Frog Films