Bayaning Third World
Bayaning Third World
Bayaning Third World
independent film from 2000 by Mike de Leon which invetigates Jose Rizals life ,
heroism, love life and other significant facts that made him a national hero.
Considered a complex film within a film (according to an essay written by highly
accredited theologian, Antonio D. Sison), it loosely but firmly targets a controversial
retraction document. The said document was supposed to expose the national
heros renouncement of all his writing and works that are against the Catholic
Church during the Spanish rule in the Philippines, of whether it was authentic or
fabricated. The film won numerous awards in the 23rd Gawad Urian Awards
including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor. This movie was also dedicated
to the late actress Charito Solis.
It is reported that the original text was published in La Voz Espanola and Diaro De Manila, dated December 30,
1896, the very day after Jose Rizal's death. A second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain in a magazine called
La Juventud where in this reproduction, it was revealed that the source of the copy was from a Jesuit, Father
Balaguer, who has maintained anonimity for 14 years after its public release. For the original text, no one has
actually claimed witness to the retraction document except La Voz Espanola, stating that they have read Rizals
own hand writing and was given to the Archbishop. There is much debate and controversy towards the
retraction, though most historians and have deemed it to be false. Ricardo Lopez, author of Rizal Beyond the
Grave, concludes that the handwriting in the said document was not Jose Rizals. Furthermore, he said there
was no justification that Rizals remains were buried in holy ground, nor was there a certification of marriage
between Rizal and Josephine Bracken. Senator Rafael palma, the former President of the University of the
Philippines and a prominent Mason, strengthened this argument and stated that the retraction is in proportion
with Rizals character and mature beliefs. Other known anti- retraction prominents are Frank Laubach, a wellknown evangelical Christian missionary, Austin Coates, a British writer, and Ricardo Manapat, the Director of
the National Archives.
Some also still argue that Rizals handwriting on the document and his catholic gestures before his death was
witnessed and authentic. Teodoro Kalaw, 33rd degree mason and handwriting experts, H. Otley Beyer and Dr.
Jose I. Del Rosario, both of UP, deemed that the retraction is genuine. It has also been stated that there were
11 eyewitnesses present during Rizals recital of Catholic prayers, signing of a Catholic prayer book, and the
writing of his supposed retraction. The same witnesses also saw him kissing the crucifix before his untimely
execution. Father Marciano Guzman, a great grand nephew of Rizal, divulged that Rizal confessed four times
and was certified by 15 witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops
Masons and anti-clericals.
historical accuracy. De Leon's film gives proper-that is, primal--importance to the question of
Rizal's alleged retraction, framing the issue thus: if
Rizal didn't retract, then he stuck to his principles
and died a hero (and heretic). If Rizal didretract
and returned to the Church, then he went against
everything he had written and said and died a
coward (or, as I would put it, a recognizably human
being). Jose Rizal's position that Rizal retracted and
is still somehow a hero is, as De Leon's film so
eloquently points out (without once directly
pointing anything out), a complete contradiction.
I can't quite call De Leon's film superior to
O'Hara's Sisa (1998); both recognize the difficulty
of filming the life of Rizal, both use diametrically
opposite approaches--Bayaning Third World filling
up the gaps with wit and intellectual
speculation, Sisa with imagination and
heart. Bayaning Third World displays remarkable
ingenuity in trying to make what should have been
a dry historical debate lively and
involving; Sisa displays equally remarkable
ingenuity in trying to make a coherent and even
moving historical drama out of an impossibly small
P2.5 million ($25,000) budget, shot in ten days
(Bayaning Third World, though I can't be sure, must
cost at least P5 million or more, shot for over a
year). Calling one better than the other is probably
a matter of taste (personally--and I think you can
see this coming a mile away--I plunk down in favor
dug deeper, the more questions left unanswered popped up. Its one big loop that mocks the futility of
digging deep down Rizals personal life, his inner feelings and motivations.
Cris Villanueva always asks if its still relevant to discuss these issues a century after Rizals death.
Maybe it is still relevant so that we can have a hero who will not be anymore subjected to doubts by
many scholars a flawless hero so to speak to maintain Rizals legacy to our country.
But what is a hero really? Is there a perfect or flawless hero? Will there ever be an unblemished hero?
A long time already went by since Rizals death. A lot of things have already happened since 1896.
Maybe knowing the complete story is not that important anymore. Rizal is an image of Filipino
intelligence and an inspiration to the youth of today and tomorrow. Many look up to him. If the truth
would tarnish everything that was built and preserved, maybe its not worth pursuing anymore. So what
if he retracted his statements and beliefs? We are already influenced by Rizal in many ways positively
I believe. His greatness would not be diminished by a mere renunciation since damage was already
inflicted to the colonizers by his works and statements. Nothing will ever change today.
On the technical aspect, this film is superior with its use of black and white (perfect for the period of
time covered by the film), mock commercials and re-creations and parodies of historic events (e.g.
execution of Rizal where he run away from his executors). One interesting bit of information; the actors
did not know they are filming a comedy. This was done to preserve the authenticity of their acting since
not knowing that theyre filming a comedy, the actors would not force themselves trying to be funny.
This strategy worked excellently for this film as spontaneity and zest were preserved throughout the
film.
The Final Word
The final segment of the film dubbed as Kanya-Kanyang Rizal conveyed that we know Rizal in lots of
different ways. Depending on who we ask, a different version of Rizal will always be told. Its like
history in general, where even in the presence of various pieces of evidences there would always be
some room for a historians opinion to enter his discussion. What would history become without
discussions and debates? A mere collection of information regarding and records of the past. Its an
endless cycle, almost futile, but not entirely useless since it encourages us to think within our own
minds.