Emerging Filipino Indie Genre in the Philippine National Cinema

What truly sets the Independent Cinema apart from the Mainstream Cinema? The film industry was generally classified financially and thematically into two: the independent and the mainstream. That is why the Philippine cinema has been subject to change, to progress, and even to confuse one with the other. The history of the Philippine Cinema proves this with regard to the Spanish and American influences during their occupation which led to the birth of cinema in the country (Deocampo) and the political impact of the past which shaped the ‘nation’ and the ‘cinema’ (Campos). Today, Filipino independent films, also known as “indie films,” have been establishing its identity that distinguishes it from the commercialized mainstream movies or popular cinema through the establishments of various Philippine Independent Film Festivals and the historical feats of independent Filipino filmmakers in both local and international arena. Redefining indie films as its own style or genre in the context of the Philippine national cinema helps to better classify the said form and to hopefully be further recognized by the Filipino audiences themselves, which may potentially solidify its identity as opposed to its apparent counterpart – the mainstream. Such attempt may create a more legitimate identity of the national cinema.

What is independent cinema? Deemed as the alternative to the mainstream, independent films include both narrative and non-narrative film such as documentaries, avant-garde and experimental films. In a traditional definition and genre, “independent cinema is any type of filmmaking that takes place outside the mainstream commercial film industry or films [and] filmmaking practices that claim a degree of autonomy in relation variously to industrial practices, filmmaking conventions, or political context” (Film Genres: Independent films). In the context of Philippine cinema, the Filipino indie or Pinoy indie films typically draw on realist narrative film style that deviates from the classical style of Filipino mainstream films which mainly adapt the style of the West particularly that of the Hollywood. What is the Filipino indie film genre then? Noted for mirroring social reality and issues, the Filipino indie film genre offers unique mechanical and narrative styles of filmmaking which can be referred to as auteurism where the filmmaker serves as the author and mastermind of his/her work (Griffin). Are the aforementioned features only exclusive of the indies? Generally characterized by various elements like themes, narrative style, and technical form, the dichotomy between the indie and mainstream genre is ostensibly not black and white.  

There has been a blurry financial distinction between the independent and the mainstream, so reevaluating their aesthetic form and thematic content is necessary to develop their respective identities. Although Campos argued that “the indie-versus-mainstream binary opposition…is a simplistic and counterproductive way of thinking about the [proliferation of contemporary cinema]” (21-22) and such distinction has no concrete evidence (227), the essence of this emerging indie genre as opposed to mainstream or otherwise has to be accounted for developing a legitimate national cinema. The conception that indie films, with regard to its technical and mechanical aspects, is generally with depth and meaning which serve as stimuli for creative and critical interpretations becomes problematic vis-à-vis the mainstream movies that can also be subject of interpretation when artistic style and value are also apparent but arguable. Mainstream films produced by the major commercial companies such as Star Cinema, Viva Films, and Regal Entertainment do not dare to completely risk contradicting its own identity which is to appeal to the mass audience through adapting a classical form of narrative film that focuses more on storytelling than exploring characters and capturing life which is apparent in independent films. However, it is not only a question of what narrative film style does one adapt but also what distinction does one present against the other. In Cabagnot’s characterization, mainstream films are considered as ‘commercial films’ while the indie is known as ‘art film’. Being produced commercially, the mainstream follows certain conventions that are anchored from “the big studio (Hollywood) system –a highly structured and monopolistic system that controlled all aspects of a film’s production, distribution and exhibition” (2), which scholars theoretically find less substance than the independent due to its ‘escapist’ nature (3-4).

In addition, Sarmiento believes that indie films are more affective and effective in depicting and reflecting culture and society as it is ‘free from commercial considerations’ (120). Aside from the power of documentaries (a non-narrative form of film) and despite the fictive films (a narrative form of film), be it mainstream or indie, the motion picture still has the capacity to represent or misrepresent a certain culture that it chooses to and filmmakers may or may not be conscious in doing so with regards to the film character, setting, and story. The motivations of the characters are dependent upon their culture which is observed in the film and it is also the said culture that provides the conflicts where the story would revolve. The disposition of the characters, the obstacles in the plot, and the given milieu of the movie embody the culture of Filipinos and are observed in both mainstream and independent cinema. However, being both the bearer of the Filipino culture and tradition, independent films deliver more promise in depicting the reflections of a Filipino society as:

More than sheer audio-visual bytes however, what makes a film convincingly real is...the aspects that brings it together as one of a piece… Movies made under the purview of “social realism” presents the human condition in its gritty details, without attempts to glamorize or sanitize. The audience is confronted with the unsettling realities of life (emphasis added) (124).

Sarmiento refers to the nature of independent cinema to be “free from commercial considerations,” that is, unwillingness to address specific social issues and concerns so as to not alienate its mass audience by practicing censorship among other restrictions. Given that indie genre comprises several themes and topic that the mainstream does not usually draw on, independent films challenge the commercialism in the mainstream media industry (128) as “indie films are sensitive to issues besetting contemporary society, adopting therefore story materials that touch on social concerns of urgent currency” (137). Conversely, Campos is also keen upon the political context of the history of the Philippine cinema particularly that of the Martial Law era; Valerio argues that “that independent films can also be used as an ‘alternative’ to counter the global hegemonic dominance of Western cinema, particularly those of Hollywood,” while Sarmiento signifies the independent and its nature as indeed anti-commercialist because of their “[strong] implied advocacies” (132) such in a way that expresses their artistic endeavor and even political inclinations and not influenced by profit motivation; whereas the mainstream and its nature do not delve in sensitive societal issues as strongly as the independent. They all share the notion that indie genre has the power to counter commercialism, to clear political obstructions, and to challenge the status quo.

Aforementioned notions, despite being true in cinematic nature and history, may not be enough to fully redefine a cinema such that of the Philippines because of the advancement in film technology, that is, digital filmmaking has been introduced in the 21^st century which renewed the examination of independent cinema. Such ‘new wave’ does not fully help in giving significance to the “indie genre” when given that mainstream movies are characterized but not limited by genres like drama, romance, comedy, and horror (genre system) while independent movies are characterized but not limited by themes of poverty, gender, politics, and other social issues and taboos. This does not set the boundary between the two and make the “indie genre” more essential and identifiable. What if consequently, given now the ease of digital filmmaking over the celluloid antiquity, independent cinema explores common themes that the mainstream is known for, generic narrative story for example, and what if mainstream cinema tries to adapt stories that the independent is apparently noted for like artsy and experimental ones? Campos critically synthesized premises regarding the notion of ‘independence’ in Philippine cinema as he explicitly regards the term “indie as conflated term” (226) due to contrasts made my various of filmmakers and film scholars alike. 
For one, the supposed binary opposition between the indie and the mainstream, he cited Del Mundo’s compromised premise which expresses “that mainstream cinema should adapt and appropriate indie practices and innovations for its growth, while indie cinema should continue to reinvent itself and defy mainstream restrictions also for its growth” (227). Campos further adds that Filipino independent film festivals, specifically Cinemalaya and Cinema One Originals (the former claiming to be independent while the latter is a subsidiary of ABSCBN, a commercial company) conflate the notions that surround the indies in a sense that there are acclaimed films from Cinemalaya that seem commercially appealing but are still independent and there are celebrated films from Cinema One Originals that are ‘highly experimental and apparently noncommercial films.’ Such extremity induces impossibility to create such characteristic for films noted for its independence with regard to its form (aesthetics and mechanical) and content (theme and story). Cinemalaya, defended by its first year’s congress director Nicanor Tiongson, stood its ground for being independent by expressing their notion of independence: “that indie should not be hampered or compromised by considerations of commerce, cultural conventions, or even technological infrastructure” (227). 
However, the statement can be rendered obsolete in the current context, as Campos also criticized, because independent films are now being transformed into a marketable crafts to reach wider audience which still target a niche under a particular class culture while utilizing available technologies and media.

Classifying indie films can simply be dealt by self-labeling of the films as indie films or films that fall under the indie genre which is outside the genre system that the mainstream utilizes, but this has never been the custom and even if it has, subjectivity would eventually become problematic as there are yet to be a clear criteria for indie-identification. More explicitly, such film is deemed independent when exhibited in a local or an international independent film festival and/or have limited screening areas due to financial restrictions and marketing incapability thus perceiving the tacit exclusivity as a prevalent and common characteristic of independent cinema. Such nature has been questioned by scholars and critics like Valerio and Tioseco who equally asked ‘cinema for whom?’ and ‘how can [independent] cinema serve the Filipino masses?’ Both situated the status of independent filmmaking in both international and local stage where it has been recognized by the industry itself but not by the mass audience, the Filipino people. They problematized this kind of exclusivity within festivals that cross the national and transnational identity of Philippine cinema. Even the congress of Cinemalaya regarded this reputation of independent cinema to be challenging (Campos 239). As Valerio believes that the independent cinema should realize its role in order to shift from the poverty-violent-and-sexual-driven content of Filipino indie films that satisfy international film festivals especially those of the West to a “counter-hegemonic ideas under the guise…. [of a] truly Filipino alternative cinema” (1). Historically, there is also a significant discourse regarding alternative cinema in the context of a national cinema which Campos noted Deocampo’s premise on ‘alternative’ to be revolutionary in form and content which acknowledged its independence against the mainstream, but such revolutionary notion of the independent cinema is separately conceived by other filmmakers: revolutionary as using a new medium (the digital video/ DV) and revolutionary in a socio-political context of film content (224-225), both are supposed to challenge the commercialized mainstream (both local and those of Hollywood) by shifting to DV and producing more radical films.

The introduction of digital filmmaking has totally turned the tables of the Philippine cinema – hopefully deeming it to be an impetus of another Golden Age in the 21^st century just like the celluloid Golden Ages in the past. The decline of mainstream production at the arrival of the new century found the emergence of independent production with the vantage of digital video which would be utilized by Cinemalaya at its birth year in 2005 and the years to follow (220-221). Although it is important to note that “Pinoy independent cinema did not start with Cinemalaya” (qtd in Cabagnot 9), Cinemalaya always plays a vital role in discussing independent cinema in the Philippines as it has pioneered a venue for the indies in the 21^st century. The said host has undergone a crucial and controversial discourses regarding the supposed but problematic notion of independence, hence deliberately taking its own stand on what independent cinema is (Campos 219) as previously expressed under the names of those who were personally involved in Cinemalaya and its established objectives that support and strengthen Filipino filmmakers and their creation of Filipino experience through cinematic crafts (Cinemalaya).

Furthermore, the challenge of establishing a national cinema also lies in the emerging recognition to regional cinemas in the 21^st century. The indie genre is not only utilized for national and international consumption but has been the facade of the films from the Philippine regions. Technically created with independence, films in the likes of both short and full-length film competitions throughout the country and film production in high schools and colleges nationwide are another aspect to continually consider to grasp the current status of the film industry and the Philippine cinema (Gancio 118; Campos 231-232). Gancio inferred that “regional cinema remains at the margins of the country’s mainstream film industry” (121) but it has definitely affected the stage of the Philippine cinema as it evidently calls the attention of the wider audience and filmmakers and scholars alike. Campos reified the desire to form a concrete identity of independent cinema is attached to the ‘notion of the national’ while being influenced by the ‘global’ (216). This means to say that the film industry and the Philippine cinema are yet to realize a true national cinema alongside the struggle of other countries and regions of the world to form their own. While being much conflated, it is the indie that will define the national cinema, as Del Mundo expressed, which “[should] remain free and liberating… [and] do not cross over to the mainstream” (Campos 223). 

The proliferation in the number of independent films being produced since Cinemalaya is born and more local independent film festivals like Cinema One, CineFilipino, and Cine Rehiyon, are introduced which promptly resulted to the recognition by the public-at-large can be attributed to the initiatives made by the Cultural Center of the Philippines and the Film Development Council of the Philippines which truly contribute in establishing the identity of a national cinema in the Philippines through empowering the film industry particularly its periphery, the indies. Despite having the notion of independence continually problematized and conflated, the ‘independent movement’ has emerged and distinguished as the local and international engagements of indie films are highly and actively supported by the industry and most importantly, the reach of said films in the local stage has immensely improved through such festivals.

The characteristics of each film with regard to its composition and structure (theme, plot, editing) as a motion picture reflect its genre, auteurism (if applicable) by the filmmaker, and production (technical and finance). Therefore, the indie genre characterized by its theme, narrative style, and technical form is the identification of independent cinema apart from the mainstream cinema. While there is still the apparent dichotomy between the two with less financial definition and more mechanical and narrative distinctiveness, the Philippine national cinema is shaping its identity through independent films, including those from the regions, and the role of the indie genre essentially paves way to the legitimacy of a national cinema identity.

WORKS CITED

Cabagnot, Edward Paciano. "Pinoy Indie Cinema 101." (n.d.).

Campos, Patrick F. The End of National Cinema: Filipino Film at the Turn of the Century. Ed. CLarissa C. David Rolando B. Tolentino. University of the Philippines Press, 2016.

Cinemalaya. 2018. Web site. 03 November 2018. <http://www.cinemalaya.org/about-cinemalaya/>.

Deocampo, Nick. "Cinema and colonization: American colonization and the rise of cinema in the Philippines." Comparative American Studies 5.2 (2007): 147-171.

Film Genres: Independent films. 26 September 2018. 3 November 2018. <https://researchguides.dartmouth.edu/filmgenres/independents>.

Gancio, Mary Kareen L. "Philippine Contemporary Regional Cinema: A Narrative Analysis of Regional Filmmakers‟ Accounts on the Re-emergence of Regional Films in the 21st Century." International Conference on Arts, Social Sciences, Humanities and Interdisciplinary Studies (2017).

Griffin, Jacqui. A Quick Guide To Auteur Theory. 28 February 2017. Web. 29 September 2018. <https://www.filminquiry.com/quick-guide-auteur-theory/>.

Sarmiento, Ramon Felipe A. "Depictions of Culture in Filipino Independent Films." Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 13.2 (2013): pp 120-138.

Tioseco, Alexis. "Shifting agendas: the decay of the mainstream and rise of the independents in the context of Philippine cinema." Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 8.2 (2007): 302.

Valerio, Elvin Amerigo D.G. "The Other "Other" Cinema: National and Cultural Identity in Filipino Alternative Films." 2008.

Paper 2 - Contextual

ENG 13 (Writing as Thinking)

6 November 2018

Official movie poster, sourced from imdb.com