Rizal Film Reaction Paper
Rizal Film Reaction Paper
Rizal Film Reaction Paper
PI 100
Heroes
are
often
portrayed
as
one-dimensional
characters
in
many
platforms
of
entertainmenthumans
who
appear
so
selfless
and
invincible,
to
the
point
that
they
are
mystified.
We
enjoy
these
versions
of
heroes
and
view
them
as
ideals.
But
when
heroes
are
painted
as
normal
humans
with
flaws
and
sharp
edges,
they
are
immediately
seen
for
only
that.
Instead
of
being
humanized,
they
are
antagonized.
Acclaimed
director
Marilou
Diaz-Abayas
three-hour
film
on
Jose
Rizal
tries
to
strike
a
balance.
The
film,
back
in
1998
when
it
was
released,
was
then
viewed
as
revolutionary
for
Philippine
cinema,
as
Diaz-Abaya
tries
to
present
a
more
realistic
view
of
Rizal,
and
was
said
to
have
set
an
example
for
many
historical
films.
Rizal
is
portrayed
as
the
hero
we
know
him
to
be,
with
his
literary
works
inspired
by
the
burgeoning
liberalism
in
Europe.
Rizals
work
ignited
spirits
of
Filipinos
who
are
stuck
under
leaders
in
a
conservative
(and
abusive)
frame
of
mind.
At
the
same
time,
Abayas
characterization
of
Rizal
manages
to
include
many
distinct
details
that
highlight
his
humanity
his
being
short-tempered
and
even
his
insistence
of
getting
his
way
almost
all
the
time.
What
I
would
like
to
highlight
is
how
the
film
allows
Rizals
character
to
explore
the
ideas
of
vengeance
and
violence,
which
many
teachers
who
discuss
Rizal
prefer
to
gloss
over.
The
very
presence
of
Simoun
in
the
film,
and
the
selection
of
certain
scenes
from
El
Filibusterismo
and
Noli
Me
Tangere
shows
that
Diaz-Abaya
wants
to
show
that
Rizal
did
have
extremist
points
of
view,
and
had
every
reason
to
feel
that
way.
Although
it
was
really
cheesy
and
clichd,
Rizals
hallucination
scene
in
which
Simoun
tries
to
gaud
Rizal
into
changing
the
climax
of
El
Filibusterismo,
showed
that
Rizal
also
experienced
conflict
and
doesnt
just
play
the
annoyingly
peaceful
advocate
that
remains
collected
in
the
face
of
violence,
in
contrast
to
Bonifacios
strong
personality
that
appears
to
be
agitated
in
many
of
his
portrayals.
In
my
experience,
majority
of
my
high
school
Filipino
teachers
preferred
to
paint
Rizal
as
the
immaculate
hero
while
Bonifacio
was
his
complete
opposite.
Three
out
of
four
of
the
Filipino
teachers
I
had
in
high
school
always
began
discussing
Rizal
with
the
quote
he
never
even
said
The
pen
is
mightier
than
the
sword.
And
from
there,
they
start
discussing
the
importance
of
pacifist
methods
with
bold
implications
that
we
should
be
subservient
to
our
administration
of
nuns
in
school,
saying
we
should
emulate
Rizal,
and
view
Bonifacio
as
a
lesson
learned
Violence
is
never
the
answer.
Not
that
highlighting
peace
in
progress
is
wrong,
but
what
is
wrong
is
presenting
only
one
side
of
a
situation
and
claiming
that
that
is
all
there
is
to
it.
Rizal
was
angry,
hurt,
and
conflicted
in
many
parts
of
the
film,
just
as
much
as
Bonifacio,
or
any
average
human
being
can
be.
And
such
is
a
side
of
Rizal
we
hardly
get
to
see
in
many
interpretations
of
him
in
past
films.
Diaz-Abaya
later
redeemed
Rizals
aggrieved
side
by
presenting
a
calm
and
collected
Rizal
from
trial
to
his
execution,
but
stayed
true
to
Rizals
humanity
through
certain
nuances
of
nervousness,
doubt,
and
fear.
Diaz-Abaya
presented
a
deeper
image
of
the
national
hero,
for
in
the
film,
we
also
got
to
see
how
Rizal
swallows
his
own
weaknesses
to
be
strong
for
his
mother
and
siblings
who
feared
the
day
of
his
death.
The
film
is
powerful,
compared
to
other
historical
films
made
in
that
time.
It
managed
to
retell
a
story
that
has
been
told
over
and
over
again,
with
fair
enough
acting
and
visuals.
Yet,
there
is
still
a
need
for
modern
retellings
of
Rizals
story.
First,
Diaz-Abayas
film
did
not
succeed
in
tying
Rizals
fight
for
democracy
to
the
modern-day
fight
against
corruption
and
violence
that
act
as
shackles
of
modern
democracy.
The
18-year-old
film
is
what
it
is,
a
historical
film,
but
hardly
as
inspiring
as
it
should
have
been.
Also,
the
younger
generations
demand
for
change
and
revolution
can
only
be
evoked
through
brutal
and
gritty
visualizations,
which
was
the
case
of
Heneral
Luna
with
its
chopped
heads,
bloody
wars
and
Antonio
Lunas
crass
yet
genuine
form
of
leadership.
In
order
for
Rizals
story
to
rouse
a
generation
born
into
peacefulness
and
democracy,
it
must
be
more
powerful
than
Diaz-Abayas
version.
The
challenge
here
is
how
to
balance
the
need
for
stronger
and
more
impactful
visuals
that
can
stir
and
shock
a
sleeping
generation,
deliver
a
message,
and
retell
Jose
Rizals
story
that
doesnt
paint
him
as
the
hero
without
a
single
flaw
but
as
a
human
being,
that
through
a
series
of
mistakes,
sacrifices,
managed
to
begin
a
revolution
that
ended
a
333-year
regime.