In a country like Pinas with its history of several systemic impediments to social change, such as colonial occupation and authoritarian regimes, anonymity has proved to be a useful, even honorable, device. Underground opposition groups benefit from posting their critiques in their long-running cat-and-mouse skirmishes, proceeding from the guerrilla-warfare examples of predecessors throughout global history.

From “The Joy of Anonymity in a World that Craves Attention” by Zach D, Medium, November 2, 2018. [Photo by Jaroslav Devia]
11011It’s producers and artists I have to call out, because as far as I know, they’re the ones who’re aware of the identity of this so-called critic, who requests attendance at their press previews. Organized groups have responded differently (or worse, indifferently), as would be their wont. The most recent group, honest enough to drop the C word in their name, was the Society of Filipino Film Reviewers, which offered to provide membership to the writer in question on condition of identifying himself in his public posts. On the other extreme is the Manunuri ng Pelikulang Pilipino (Filipino Film Critics Circle, on which more later), which remained quiet except for one of its members expressing amusement with and tolerance of this particular commentator’s practice.
11011The most successful anonymous activist group at the moment is called, aptly enough, Anonymous, a hacker group that punishes abusive Western institutions by launching cyberattacks against their internet operations. I’m old enough to acknowledge participating in underground media in some antidictatorship projects in the distant past; but I also found myself at the receiving end of so-called critics, organized by a publicist suspected of being a government informant, who wrote a series of anonymized attacks against personalities they considered compromised because of popular success and therefore fraudulent in their claims to progressivity, and included writers they considered supportive of such individuals. Part of my entire critical mission, even before these ideological purists came along, was to point out that the condemnation of mass patronage leads to unproductive culs-de-sac, premised on flawed readings of leftist culture theory and not much different from reactionary critical approaches.
11011Anyone who’ll say that the current author in question is spearheading new ways of thinking on media that could potentially endanger his personal safety is as much of an ignoramus as he and should be permitted to withdraw from our present discussion. The only argument left for said writer to wield is that of privacy, which should normally be observed by anyone including myself, regardless of my unqualified support for outing closeted celebrities. However, as I’m sure most practitioners are aware of, media producers and creatives are not entitled to the same luxury of privacy, unless they prefer to withhold from themselves the benefits that accrue from successful (and therefore profitable) practice.
11011There are two speculative possibilities then, one mildly positive and the other positively awful. One is that media practitioners don’t really have much regard for criticism: whether you append your name to a review or use an alias, they’ll pretend to be concerned but really couldn’t care less, since for the most part the commercial performance of any release can be historically overdetermined (e.g., James Cameron’s Titanic will make its global box-office record even if all the world’s critics unite in describing it as an entry that deserves to sink to the depths of forgettability). The other possibility is that artists keep quiet when some of them acquire acclaim from an author, and resolve to just wait their turn, hoping it comes sooner than later.
11011This second option parallels what happens on a more comprehensive annual scale, when bands of critics retreat into the anonymity of film awards, as the Manunuris were first to exemplify. Like the writer under discussion, they declare their decisions as unhampered by influence and motivated by concern for artists and audience—both self-serving distractions, as any intensive analysis of the historical record will reveal. The community of artists appears less inclined to buy into these shameless lies at present, compared to earlier generations’ responses, but enough of a supportive press machinery springs to action during awards season to celebrate these critics’ decisions; which means those excluded from nominations or awards are expected to display good sportspersonship, allow their winning colleagues to praise the critics’ critique-less integrity, and hope their own good behavior will be rewarded at some future point.

Strasbourg Roi des rats (rat king) by Edelseider, modified by Lämpel.
Á!



































ORCID ID 
Madonna of the Revolution
Lakambini [Noblewoman]
Directed by Arjanmar H. Rebeta
Written by Rody Vera
The biggest still-to-be-resolved controversy about the Philippines’s anticolonial revolution, the first in Asia, centers on the status of Andrés Bonifacio, founder of its liberation army, the Katipunan. Most adequately schooled natives would be aware that recognition of his stature as head of the country’s liberated territories was wrested by a faction that derided his status as uneducated and low-born, despite overwhelming evidence that he’d attained higher levels of historical and political awareness, a result of persistent self-education, than his critics. As a result of duplicitous maneuvering, he and his brother were subjected to a mock trial and summarily executed, their bodies never found despite an arduous month-long search covering two mountains by his widow, Gregoria de Jesús.
11011Also known as Oryang, de Jesus specified Lakambini as her nom de guerre, in acknowledgment of her husband’s position as Lakan or ruler. She accused agents of the usurpation forces of rape and was warned that she could be targeted for assassination. Julio Nakpil, one of her late husband’s lieutenants, married her and kept her safe, enabling her to survive nearly half a century after Bonifacio’s death. A lesser-known fact is that Bonifacio had appointed her his Vice President, which would have made her his successor if the revolution had not been betrayed by Emilio Aguinaldo.
Rocco Nacino & Paulo Avelino (left) as the young Andrés Bonifacio and Julian Nakpil; and Spanky Manikan (right) as the elderly Julian Nakpil. [Screencaps by the author]
Lovie Poe (left) and Elora Españo (right) as the young Gregoria de Jesús. [Screencaps by the author]
Gina Pareño as the elderly Gregoria de Jesús. [Screencap by the author]
11011The only possible hesitation for most audiences, apart from the film’s formal novelty, would be the unremitting sadness of Oryang’s story: not only was she, like the revolution, violated by the very people expected to support her cause, she also lived through all three periods of vicious colonization, dying during World War II before the country attained any form of liberation. She allows herself some consolation in hearing the news of the failure of the fraudulent president’s attempt to legitimize his bloody power-grab via national elections, but issues perhaps the most important historical principle ever made by any Philippine political entity: that history, in its own time, will unmask hidden iniquity (preceding by a few decades Martin Luther King’s much-quoted statement on the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice).
11011Yet the filmmakers involved in the project had been capable in the past of creating difficult reflexive material with light-handed, even comic applications.[1] The daring with which they packaged the narrative of Gregoria de Jesús has not only accurately represented her as a polysemic figure, capable of addressing folks from several generations and persuasions and possibly even nationalities; it has also made her recognizable to millennial audiences, with their preference for experiencing multimedia banter and tolerance for crisscrossing various levels of reality. Lakambini has enabled her to step into the here and now, and the pleasant surprise is that her messages continue to resonate.
Note
Previously published July 27, 2025, in The FilAm. Non-essential disclosures: I was present during the feature film’s first day of shooting, intending to occasionally attend in order to observe a post-celluloid production, since the technological transition to digital occurred while I was busy writing my doctoral dissertation. I was also chair of the board of jurors during the short film festival where Arjanmar H. Rebeta’s entry (see note below) won several prizes. Finally, before production started, I wrote “Theater, Film, & Everything In-Between,” effectively an introduction to Two Women as Specters of History: Lakambini and Indigo Child by Rody Vera (Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2019), the annotated and translated screenplays of two prizewinning films; the book, also a prizewinner, was edited by Ellen Ongkeko-Marfil.
[1] Each of the names who directorially participated had works that may be classified as reflexive but in differing respects: Ellen Ongkeko-Marfil’s last completed film, Indigo Child (2016), was a documentation of a restaged play; Arjanmar H. Rebeta’s previous work, “Libro for Ransom” (2023), was a short film on an investigative journalist’s pursuit of the truth behind the disappearance and recovery of the novels of José Rizal in 1961. Jeffrey Jeturian had two titles, Tuhog (Larger than Life, 2001) and Bikini Open (2005), the first a tracking of the process of the adaptation of a rape case for a commercial film project and the second a mockumentary on a beauty contest.
Back to top
Leave a comment | tags: Commentaries | posted in Film Criticism