Breaking the Gold: The Golden Years of Philippine Cinema

Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay

Introduction – The Perceived Notion of Golden Times.

The age of cinema as a form of art and industry is relatively young as compared to other forms. In the Philippine context, the history of cinema has just only reached its centennial year with the beginnings from 1917 when Malayan Movies, a film company founded by Jose Nepomuceno and his brother Jesus, was established, to 1919 when the first Filipino feature film was produced – Dalagang Bukid (Country Maiden), produced by the same company. In spite of having a comprehensive history of Philippine cinema yet to be written, the industry has proven to develop and mature with regards to filmmaking style, form, and content for it to have the so-called ‘golden age’. Such Golden Age is ostensibly characterized by great progress, or as Cambridge dictionary defines it, “a period of time, sometimes imaginary, when everyone was happy, or when a particular art, business, etc. was very successful”. However, what does great progress truly mean? What standards does one follow for acknowledging a stage in history to be successful? In order to define and comprehend this notion of goldenness of a phase in time, one should take precaution as to not attribute such grandeur title to a false, imagined, or unjustifiable period; if more so only for the sake of celebration and tribute to such key players in the industry and for the convenience of a historical narrative.

Scholars and critics alike used to arrange categorical events in the history of Philippine cinema. For one, academics have generally branded the 1950s as the first golden age of the Philippine cinema; the 1970s as the second one; and the emergence of independents in the digital age in the 2000s as an impetus for the third golden age, if such is not yet the case.  However, such branding and glorification demand critique and further evaluation with regards to the socio-cultural, political, and economic background of the industry respective of its artistic nature and history. Bibsy M. Carballo, in his book Filipino Directors Up Close, explicitly categorizes the golden ages of Philippine cinema from 1950-2010. Jessie B. Garcia considers the 1950s a golden decade of Filipino movies; Mel Tobias contextualizes the 1980s to be the golden age of Tagalog Films. Bienvenido L. Lumbera cites the era of Martial Law under the Marcos dictatorship to be a ‘new golden age’ to which Joel David calls the “Second Golden Age of Philippine Cinema”. Conversely, Nestor U. Torre finds the 1930s to be the ‘first’ of these golden ages instead of the 1950s, while the 1970s being the third.

These perceived notions of golden times in the history of Philippine Cinema should be assessed to correct the understanding of what makes a golden age in cinema, to create consistent and more acceptable standards that would essentially legitimize and prove the goldenness of such an era, and to prevent groundless justification, although undeniably an oxymoronic term, to be perpetuated in the historical narratives of the said industry. Moreover, one may ask and question the apparent necessity for such branding in history. Why does the Philippine cinema need a golden age? Do we really need it after all?

Creating the Gold

            Nestor U. Torre, in his An Essay on Philippine Film: Touchstones of Excellence, believes 1930s is the first golden age of Philippine cinema. While still under American occupation, local film companies were established such as Del Monte Pictures, Sampaguita Pictures, Parlatone, Filippine Films, Salumbides Brothers, X’Otic, Excelsior, and LVN, let alone Jose Nepomuceno’s Malayan Movies established in 1917. It was in the 1930s “when the local screen was decent and dignified,” described Joe Quirino on the golden age of Filipino movies. It was during the early years of cinema where the relation between film and theater is highly associated because the former has utilized the latter’s forms, themes, and conventions; where acts and plays like sinakulo, komedya, and sarsuwela gave a huge influence to film genre and narrative, as well as to actors who would be casted from the theaters to the motion pictures. Unluckily, the momentum of filmmaking development headed by the likes of Julian Manansala, Octavio Silos, and Ramon Estella among others, was cut short by World War II in the 1940s.

            Film production flourished once more after the war as it was halted during the Japanese occupation in the country. The postwar in late 1940s saw a booming industry as new film companies were established; Premier Productions was founded in 1946 and Lebran Productions was established in 1949. Sampaguita Pictures and LVN survived and were reborn which would dominate the entertainment industry in the coming decade along with the aforementioned two. This Big 4 – Premier, Sampaguita, LVN, and Lebran, would pave the way for the golden years in the industry. Finally instituting a studio system that is rooted in Hollywood influence, these film companies produced a number of films that showcase both new and old actors from the pre-war who would become the “stars” of the film industry, filmmakers and directors like Manuel Conde, Lamberto Avellana, and Gerardo De Leon who would later become National Artists, and multiple film genres that would be commodified to ensure market. Such boom would turn into bust as labor issues had caused the collapse of the dominant players of the industry at the end of the ‘50s.

            Generally, film historians and scholars consider the 1970s a new golden age. This is the time of Martial Law (1972) under the late dictator President Ferdinand Marcos. Carballo states that “if the ‘50s was the era of the macho directors, the ‘70s was the age of gay directors,” as in the likes of Lino Brocka and Ishmael Bernal, both were later declared as National Artists, who now become metonymic names for their prime time in the said period. The development of film practice, the emergence of ‘new cinema’ from the independent movement, and significant outputs of quality filmmaking are usually attributed to the socio-political milieu during this decade. This extends until the early 1980s where filmmaking further becomes militant, thus producing political, even subversive to an extent, strong, well-crafted and meaningful films by the likes of Celso Ad Castillo, Mike De Leon, Maria O’hara, Peque Gallaga, Marilou Diaz Abaya, Laurice Guillen, and Tikoy Aguiluz. The change of political climate had been the prompt at the entrance of the ‘70s (Marcos’ dictatorship) and the cessation at the exit of the ‘80s (Aquino’s democratization) for the revolutionary years in this so-called “second golden age of Philippine cinema”.

            And at the turn of the new century welcomed a new technology – the digital – and defined the blurring dichotomy between the mainstream and indie, having the latter, as critics claim, to progress and shape the future of the industry.

[The Museum of Modern Art] presents a survey of Philippine film from around 2000 to the present, a period known as the Third Golden Age of Philippine cinema (following the first golden age, in the 1950s, and the second, from the 1970s to the early 1980s). The Philippines’ current wave of sustained creativity is unusual in its diversity of genre and style, audacious formal experimentation, and multiplicity of personal, social, and political perspectives. (A New Golden Age: Contemporary Philippine Cinema)

            Carballo openly takes the “indie cinema” of the 2000s as the third golden age for which he attributed to the emerging independent filmmakers back in the 80s in the likes of Raymond Red and Kidlat Tahimik. The establishment of CineManila in 1999 and Cinemalaya in 2005 saw the proliferation of the independents in the likes of Lav Diaz, Chris Martinez, Adolf Alix, Juan Lana, John Red, Pepe Diokno, and Brillante Mendoza among others.  Carballo believes that “the filmmakers who will dictate the direction of the Third Golden Age are already among us” (p.151); he then poses questions like, “Are the indies then the hope of the motherland in cinema? How long will it take us to experience the Third Golden Age?” However, the block quotation above seems to already proclaim what Carballo was awaiting – another golden age!

            So are there only three or four golden ages in the history of Philippine cinema? This non-consensual nature in the local historical narrative proves the problematic and incomplete examination of past events. Indeed, the history of Philippine cinema is yet to be fully written, corrected, and critiqued. Now that the perceived notions of golden times are shortly conceived, the duty of inquiry and analysis is just about to begin.

Breaking the Gold

            The raw facts presented are deemed as the general knowledge used for historical references. However, there is yet to be a critical synthesis that would make up for the lapses exhibited in the historical narratives of the respective writers cited here. The 1950s is commonly the point of reference for the succeeding golden eras – which claims that the first golden years were in the ‘50s.  Did the writers of film history forget or reject the prewar progress of Philippine cinema? It can be surmised that the early years of cinema were still, in fact, a formative stage. The establishment of Nepomuceno’s Malayan Movies in 1917 started the indigenization of film as a visual medium – two decades after it was introduced and brought to the country in 1897. Being a nonnative commodity brought by foreign businessmen, it was only in the 1930s when more Filipinos got a hold of the business as observed in the proliferation of local film companies, hence it was yet to mature at its entirety. Moreover, the evident reliance on theater conventions does not help in distinguishing film as itself because the cinema has yet to realize its unique form with its own characteristics, language, and conventions.  From silent to talking pictures, innovations were made during this period by a set of budding directors. “Nevertheless, despite old-fashioned cameras and stilted movements, many local films had remarkable aesthetic merits,” noted by Santiago A. Pilar. 

Would the growing industry of the ‘30s have matured if World War II did not transpire which halted the film productions in the country? Such query is counterproductive for the recovery and development, as Lumbera dates in 1945-1959, of the film industry in the postwar era has signified the fruitful years of Philippine cinema. “The greatest boom in motion pictures came immediately after the war. All the movies – like Garrison 13, Tagumpay and Orasang Ginto – made a lot of money, and actors like Leopoldo Salcedo could demand as high as P30,000 per picture then” (Pilar). The institution of the studio system has highly contributed to the production, distribution, and exhibition of films as actors were made stars and film genres were popularized and used to sustain the market. Indeed, local producers were at uproar as local films hit the box-office. Actors rose to stardom and as the decade progresses, even the unknowns ascended to popularity. Additionally, the artistry of filmmaking is observed in the practice of imaginative stories and myths – the fantasy films which were deemed to be so profitable in the early-fifties (Garcia).

However, such film genres seem to hold an escapist nature for viewers. This becomes problematic as compared to the type of films produced in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s where realism is projected by the filmmakers that would more or less alienate its viewers and not hit the box-office. On the surface, the number of films in the ‘50s was glorified while the quality of films in the ‘70s and ’80s was highlighted for the respective golden ages. Again, this is where the problem lies with regards to the standards besetting the notion of golden years in cinema. Deocampo tries to solve this by claiming only one golden age for its systematical merits in production – the studio system (as a mode of production, a form of control over the actors turned stars, and exploiting tested formulas through filmic genres) which truly determined the course of progress of the industry in the 1950s and its collapse at the end of the same decade.

            Torre also posited other substantial merits to each of the golden ages he observes. For the 1930s, he states, “Enough gifted filmmaker with their own sense of style had presented themselves and their works to the viewing public to usher in the so-called first “golden age” of Philippine films”. That despite the popularity of superficial movies, there was “a strong sense of technique, and that lent the predictable materials a measure of pertinence and excitement.” For the 1950s, Torre similarly noted how Deocampo typifies the ‘studio system’ as he expresses that,

This studio system had its favorable and unfavorable aspects as far as the production of movies was concerned. The studios control over their stars and film crews meant that they could establish reliable standards for work, thus encouraging professionalism and love for the medium. On the other hand, control also meant the tendency to follow safe, tried, and tested formulas.

            Furthermore, Torre attributed this to a set of directors who individually project clear artistry that essentially lifted the practice of filmmaking in this decade. He conversely remarked the ‘development’ that occurred in the succeeding decade – the bomba films of the 60s – and he states, “as prurience sway, excellence or even mere competence became irrelevant” for this cheap and vulgar pictures. Here come the 1970s when the independent filmmaking had peaked from the collapse of the studio system in the previous decade. Torre likewise attributed this to a set of brilliant directors who now serve as the façade of these golden years. He firmly articulates that “the commitment of [the] directors is the most important consideration” vis-à-vis the resurgence of commercial filmmaking as the decade progresses.

Corroborating different perspectives regarding the perceived notions of golden times in the history of Philippine cinema and explicitly calling them “The Golden Ages”, there appears to be a commonality among the respective phases. In Deocampo’s boom-and-bust cycle of post-war Philippine movie industry, focusing on the political economy of cinema, it is evident that there are three boom periods or levels that plateaued (at least for the mainstream industry): first is the decade of the 1950s, second is from late 1970s to early 1980s, and the third is the contemporary times in the 21^st century that now seems to be at its peak which awaits its further boom or consequent bust. Such periodization by Deocampo would be agreeable to other scholars with respect to their accounts. It is almost reflective of the perceived golden times and the times they ended, excluding the 1930s and the present time of the century.

It can be surmised that each growth of the respective times was either hindered or prompted by a certain crisis. It is indeed true that each generation has to face and deal with their respective problems: World War II broke the promising potential that the 1930s displayed, escalating labor problems from the major studios led to the downfall of the said companies which ended the productive years of the 1950s that has just only recovered from the war of the 1940s, the vulgarity of bomba films of the 1960s demanded a great shift in the industry – alongside the change of political climate due to Martial Law – 1970s until 1980s gave its contradictions prompted by the said milieu through powerful creation and use of film language that the history of Philippine cinema has been noted for.

Essentially, one can notice that the glorification is usually credited to the filmmakers and their works alone. The key players of the industry, who are the film directors and the stars of the film, are always highlighted when one talks about the golden times. Although the production companies that produced the renowned films turned classics are implicitly respected, the sets of directors who made these films and the actors who starred in these films are always on the spotlight. Scriptwriters, production designers, or the editors and other valuable people behind the film are only mentioned nonchalantly by the writers of history. This gives another trajectory for a critique of the auteurship of Filipino films. Nonetheless, attribution is important in articulating significance and of course, it is the films per se that should primarily be examined. 

If history is to settle for one golden age, how can one debunk the other perceived golden times or even select the best of these golden ages? In economic perspective, one can quantify the number of films produced while regarding the distribution and exhibition of the said film in the box-office; this would equate progress and success in commercial value. In critical consideration, one can qualify the number of awards won both locally and internationally, as well as the recognition that certain Filipino films had earned both nationwide and worldwide from prestige film festivals that reflect the film practice of the industry; this would equate progress and success in artistic value. If these two were to be the primary criteria, Quirino had emphasized and supported such notions as film is “not only an artwork but also a commercial product, and for better or worse must succeed on both these levels; [film] must earn both the respect of the critics and the approval of the box-office.”

Contextually, film is a vehicle of culture where socio-political backgrounds are highly embodied; film is also a technological invention which is continually developing. Considering these, one should not disregard such intricacies in writing history, let alone evaluating and critiquing it. The relevance in society, culture, and politics has to be assessed for the construction of any ideal notion; the innovations in the medium per se, production, and exhibition must ultimately be accounted for its technological progress.  Therefore, each perceived era of the golden times has it respective merits for the aforementioned factors. How do we reconcile this with respect to each time and people of the industry? Indeed, history can be seen in different lenses and this very peculiarity of history creates its own problem that makes it constantly be argued, challenged, and even rewritten.

            After a historical examination and analysis, such branding of golden times for a particular period in the history Philippine cinema celebrates the development, regardless whether it appears vaguely and superficially, of the film practice and experience that always lead to bettering what was and realizing what can be.  And as Torre optimistically views Filipino film, “When it’s bad, it is awful, but when it aspires to do good work, it is truly capable of achieving excellence.” However, one may ask, excellence on what? This vagueness has produced a multiplicity of subjectivity. Commercial excellence is rooted in and only valued by capitalism. Artistic excellence is the dream of every cineaste. Excellence in creating socially relevant films is what critical people, even the radical ones, aim for.

Entertainment is essential, but enlightenment is more crucial. Social relevance must be realized as film has been used for nation-building. History reveals that cinema, as Rolando B. Tolentino contextualizes, has served as our national pastime, as an apparatus, and as a resistance. This speaks volume about the power of film – that it is more than the entertainment it provides because it can be utilized and exploited for social, cultural, and political interests. The state, the church, and the academe, as Lumbera categorizes, play significant roles in shaping the industry; thus, the nation must be active in accepting, consuming, rejecting, and producing materials that would affect the people in its entirety. Progress has to be measured, no matter how arbitrary, along with the constant development of Philippine cinema, and it has to regard its impact on the public at large. Ultimately, the power of film, not only as a commercial product and an artwork but as a powerful tool, must be realized to touch and move the consciousness of the people!

Bibliography

A New Golden Age: Contemporary Philippine Cinema. 2019. 4 May 2019. <https://www.moma.org/calendar/film/3843>.

Carballo, Bibsy M. Filipino Directors Up Close: The Golden Ages of Philippine Cinema, 1950-2010. Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc., 2010.

David, Joel. The National Pastime: Contemporary Philippine Cinema. Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc., 1990.

Deocampo, Nick. Film : American influences on Philippine cinema . Manila: Anvil Publication, 2011.

Garcia, Jessie B. "The Golden Decade of Filipino Movies." Guerrero, Rafael Ma. Readings in Philippine Cinema. Manila: Experimental Cinema of the Philippines, 1983.

Golden Age. n.d. Cambridge University Press. 4 May 2019. <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/golden-age>.

Lumbera, Bienvenido L. Re-viewing Filipino Cinema. Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc., 2011.

Pilar, Santiago A. "The Early Movies." Guerrero, Rafael Ma. Readings in Philippine Cinema. Manila: Experimental Cinema of the Philippines, 1983.

Quirino, Joe. Don Jose and the Early Philippine Cinema. Quezon City: Phoenix   House, 1983.

Tobias, Mel. One Hundred Acclaimed Tagalog Movies: Sineng Mundo, Best of Philippine Cinema. Ed. Neall Calvert. Vancouver: Peanut Butter Publishing, 1998.

Tolentino, Rolando B. Contestable Nation-Space: Cinema, Cultural Politics, and Transnationalism in the Marcos-Brocka Philippines. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 2014.

Torre, Nestor U. "An Essay on Philippine Film: Touchstones of Excellence." Tuklas sining: essays on the Philippine arts. Ed. Nicanor G. Tiongson. Manila : Sentrong Pangkultura ng Pilipinas, 1991.

Final Paper
FILM 102 (History of Philippine Cinema)

May 17, 2019