The Film “ Amigo”- Not so Historically Friendly for Filipinos

Movie Review

The Film “ Amigo”- Not so Historically Friendly for Filipinos

By Arturo P. Garcia

A columnist Emil Guillermo noted  in Philippine News last week “  ..people don’t learn much from history, maybe they’ll learn more after seeing Sayles “Amigo.”

But some commentaries and observations were made during our after movie discussions  last Saturday with the youth organization in LA --the KmB does not necessarily conform with his views. And I agree with much of the Filipino-American  youth ( movie goers ) animated and truthful observations.

1. Racist overtones dominates the film. Although they tried to present the Filipino perspective, much is concentrated on how Americans fell about the Filipinos during that time.

Yes, we understood that this is a period film. We know and understand that the pervading system that time is racist. But to see and feel that all through out the movie and see the obvious, its really revolting.  Racist words like “Dagos”, “Gugus”, “Bandits” and complaining about the clap abounds.

Even the use of an historical inaccurate Spanish priest who knows how to speak English ( American English at that!) who spew anti-Filipino epithets was an over-stretch of the director/writer’s artistic license.

One KmB member remarked “ Yes we know they are racists. But please, give us break!’

2. Focus on the contradictions among the people.  We understand the director’s penchant for balance. But in the process, Sayles focused on the contradictions among the people. For example, the contradictions between the Republican guerilla forces and the civil authorities dealing with the Americans.

It unnecessarily showed that Filipino guerrillas were merciless even their own people and especially among the Chinese coolies. Even to the point, the the guerilla leader did not do anything even the same Filipino guerilla leader ordered the brother to play “amigo”  to the Americans.

In the process the real message that the Filipinos never lend a hand to the American forces that they were forced to hire Chinese and Japanese collies for their war efforts was  subsumed. What was highlighted was the Filipino animosity to the Chinese.  Which is not historically accurate!

This was also the criticism of some movie critics in the Philippines. But Sayles defended his movie by citing American military records. My ass!

3.Poor Transition. A budding Fil-Am writer/ filmmaker noted that Sayles erred in providing transitions to the story. I personally saw the problem. It was enough for him to say in early narration and credits “ that American fought a war with Spain, so the Americans came half-way around the world to be in the Philippines.” Period!

He did not even take pains to explain in his contrast using General MacArthur's General Order 100 and the Aguinaldo’s proclamation ordering Filipinos to wage guerillla warfare in 1899 from regular warfare and what was stressed was that the two orders have no difference. That the two orders were just punishing anyone who will give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Again, many things , proper things that could have made the transition in the movie clear and have explained the events in proper perspective could have set the record straight. Just several lines through the actors could have said:  “ We have beaten the Filipinos last year and have chased Aguinaldo to kingdom come , so today 1900’s—they are now fighting us through another kind of warfare.” Or even better explained the two disparate orders more thoroughly

One KmB member remarked;’  “ Sayles put our people in a bad light. It showed us as always angry and even against our people. Threatening them with death!’

4. Good points. But generally speaking, we appreciate Sayles efforts . For it was the first film , a mainstream film about the Filipino-American War which is a taboo subject here in America.

We will welcome more improvements in the future films and we hope that more films will follow Sayles efforts.

At least it is sympathetic to Filipinos and most of all anti war and resonates the current war in Afghanistan, Iraq and the now current American war in Libya.

As Emil Guillermo said: “the subtitles are also interesting ( even if some are not so accurate) because you can hear characters translate or mistranslate it in English.”

Another KmB member said “ Well, it is a film about us Filipinos, I loved to see our people in the movies.”
Another remarked that “ it is good start for a discussion. To go deeper into the study of our own history and our past and our heroic legacy as a people”

We acknowledged Sayles anti-war sentiments. The only problem is it is a mixed message. That everybody losses in the war. There is no  appreciation of the people’s role. The message is left for the people to ponder which sides they favor. An intellectual predicament at that!

The real message if he is progressive , is that  in a people’s war or a war for liberation against a foreign aggressors, this war is just and the people will eventually win in the end.

‘It was left in a cryptic message that was said in the movies by Bembo Roco, a peasant guerilla that the KmB noted and appreciates. In  answering the young soldiers comment “ We have no chance of winning this war” , the revolutionary character said:

“ We barely made it out in Cavite in 1896, but we almost won and trapped the Spaniards in Intramuros.( in reference to the walled city of Manila) . Its up for you  the youth to step up and win this. This your chance.”


*****