Bayaning Third World (roughly translated as 3rd World Hero) is a Filipino 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 inLa Voz EspanolaandDiaro De Manila, dated December 30, 1896, the very day after Jose Rizal's death. A second text appeared inBarcelona, Spainin 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 exceptLa 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 well-known 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 BeyerandDr. 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.This is not a Rizal film

Bayaning Third World(Third World Hero,2000) is Mike De Leon's long-awaited film on Jose Rizal. It took over three years to complete, beginning way back in 1996 with the announcement by GMA Films of a massive, P70 million epic starring boy-toy Aga Muhlach as Rizal. Then Muhlach left, reportedly because De Leon was taking so long; eventually De Leon himself abandoned the production, to announce that he was making his own, independently produced film. No less than three other Rizal films were initiated and finished while De Leon's picture maturated: Tikoy Aguiluz'sRizal sa Dapitan(Rizal in Dapitan, 1997); Marilou Diaz Abaya'sJose Rizal(1998--ironically, the same production GMA Films intended De Leon to direct, rumored to have an even bigger--P120 million--budget); and Mario O'Hara'sSisa. De Leon's picture was invited--sight unseen, mind you--to the Director's Fortnight at Cannes International Film Festival (which it failed to attend). There were long periods when no one knewwhatwas happening--the project was shrouded in a secrecy as tight and mysterious, it seemed, as Kubrick's own latest (and last) work,Eyes Wide Shut(1999).

I finally saw the finished product last week, and can personally testify to the atmosphere of electric anticipation that gripped the audience. Some eighty minutes later, when the film's end credits began to roll, an image and six words popped into my mind.

The image: Magritte's famous painting about a pipe, and its enigmatic label.

The six words: "This is not a Rizal movie."

Or, it's not a Rizal film any more than Magitte's pipe is not a pipe.

The film follows two filmmakers (played by Ricky Davao and Cris Villanueva) as they attempt to do pre-production research on a film on Rizal. The two get into endless, impassioned debates; they propose all sorts of absurdities (Rizal Underarm Spray), and make witty observations (Rizal on a devalued one-peso coin is still Number One). They interview people from Rizal's life--his brother Paciano (Joonee Gamboa), his sisters Trining (Rio Locsin) and Narcisa (Cherry Pie Picache), his mother, Dona Lolay (Daria Ramirez), his (reputed) confessor, Father Balaguer (a hilariously villainous Ed Rocha), and his (reputed) wife, Josephine Bracken (Lara Fabregas).

Their conclusion (people who wish to stay surprised may want to skip to the next paragraph...though doing so may ultimately prove pointless) after much hemming and hawing basically boils down to this: Rizal's life is unfilmable. It's the long, shapeless and rather inactive life of an intellectual bum (something I concluded myself long ago, when I was involved in writing the screenplay ofRizal sa Dapitan). De Leon (with his scriptwriter and co-director, Clodualdo Del Mundo) go so far as to allow that many interpretations can be made from Rizal's life--"sari-sarilingRizal" or, roughly translated, "to each his own Rizal."

Significantly, the film lacks certain basic elements of traditional narrative film: a dramatic story, recognizable character arcs--no one is changed or transformed during the course of the film (the two filmmakers, who enjoy star billing, are named "filmmakers 1 and 2"). The last shot has the two filmmakers (stand-ins for De Leon and Del Mundo?) throwing up their hands and walking away from the project (as De Leon did, years ago). This is a Rizal movie about the impossibility of making a Rizal movie; in short, not a Rizal movie.

Possibly the single most brilliant director of the Philippines (alive or dead) and his closest and best scriptwriter have played a joke on the long-expectant--three years in the making, not to mention the waiting--Philippine public. And what a joke!Along, elaborate, multi-layered, richly allusive--drawing not just on practically everything we know about Philippine history and our national hero, but also everything Mike De Leon knows (which is considerable) about film and filmmaking--prank.

And the punchline works like a time bomb: you may find yourself laughing your head off hours after seeing the film, or--some days later--chuckling. Or you may not laugh at all;to each his own reaction to the film.

The film is stuffed with jokes and references. The structure is modeled on Orson Welles'Citizen Kane, the first twenty or so minutes a fast and funny recapitulation of Rizal's life and significance (a la Kane's life, recapitulated inThe March of Timesequence); later we have interviews of the different people who knew Kane--sorry, Rizal. One shot, of a Filipino declaiming in front of a huge banner, recalls a similar one in Welles' film, where Kane is at a political rally; several times we catch the filmmakers poring over a huge blow-up of Rizal's execution--a direct quote from Michaelangelo Antonioni'sBlow-Up. De Leon's favorite German Shepherd makes several appearances,gently mocking Alfred Hitchcock's tendency to make personal appearances in his pictures.

Other jokes: Cris Villanuevatalking to different people and concluding that their life's story would make a better film than Rizal's;Father Balaguer's testimony of Rizal's last days in prison, which De Leon mercilessly lampoons in all kinds of ways (having read part of Balaguer's testimony, I would say De Leon manages to make fun of him without once exaggerating him). My personal favoritehoweverwould bethe filmmakers' climactic confrontationwithRizal himself (Joel Torre). His replies to their questions prevaricate hilariously, as befits a true student of Jesuits ("What did you do the night before your execution?" "The Spaniards did whattheyhad to do; I did whatIhad to do.").

Some reservations: despite the astonishingly wide range covered by this relatively short film, De Leon fails to bring up the matter of money--the difficulty of funding a Rizal film, or any film for that matter (De Leon's experience after theGMA debacle shouldhave made him an expert on thesubject). Lara Fabregas ruins the fascinatingly unreliable character of Josephine Bracken (did she marry Rizal, or didn't she?) with a cartoon English accent straight out of Repertory Philippines--I mean, "newbody tawks loyk that!" And De Leon blunts the sharpened point of his joke with a voiceover statement at the very end of the film--tosiftthrough all that ambivalence and ambiguity, only to have everything cleared up at the very last second! Del Mundo admits, though, that that final voiceover is still tentative, and may be removed during the film's final sound remixing;here's to hoping they do (note: they didn't, which is a pity).

Where does De Leon's film stand in comparison with other recent Rizal flicks? I can't comment regardingRizal sa Dapitanfor obvious reasons; I do thinkBayaning Third Worldis superior to the monumentalJose Rizal. Theformerin its eighty short minutes covers more of Rizal's life than thelatterdoes in three hours, with more clarity and historical accuracy.De Leon'sfilm 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 Rizaldidretract 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'spositionthat Rizal retracted and isstillsomehow a hero is, as De Leon's film so eloquently points out (without once directly pointinganythingout), a complete contradiction.

I can't quite call De Leon's film superior to O'Hara'sSisa(1998); both recognize the difficulty of filming the life of Rizal, both use diametrically opposite approaches--Bayaning Third Worldfilling up the gaps with wit and intellectual speculation,Sisawith imagination and heart.Bayaning Third Worlddisplays remarkable ingenuity in trying to make what should have been a dry historical debate lively and involving;Sisadisplays 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 of imagination and heart). Both films, however, should be a matter of modest pride for all involved: Rizal brilliantly deconstructed on film,twice!This may not be a Rizal film, but it's a remarkable Rizal film nevertheless.We are a nation fascinated with Jose Rizal not just his heroism but also his being a womanizer, his classic hair style and many more. We devour two of his greatest literary works in secondary schools. We celebrate his birth and execution dates. We have countless movies relating to Rizal and his works. We even name our streets (Rizal Avenue, Rizal Province), corporations (RCBC), schools (Rizal High School) and products after him. Theres even a religion devoted to Rizal and his works. Even the most well-known place in Laguna is Calamba (Rizals hometown), not Santa Cruz which is its capital.Despite being subjected to countless scrutinizes by various historians, how well do we know Rizal? Is it really important to know him adequately since hes our nations symbol to our fight against four centuries of foreign colonialism?Bayaning Third World, directed by Mike de Leon, is a mockumentary on making a film about Rizal. Lots of questions were thrown around and dissected in this feature film that concern Rizal. Have Rizal really written and signed a retraction letter signifying his intention to turn back from his beliefs and re-join the Catholic Church? Did he marry Josephine Bracken? Did he retract so that he can marry Josephine Bracken? (There was no civil wedding back then.)These were discussed in the film by interviewing various people connected to Rizal for their points of view. Throughout the film, the filmmakers (Ricky Davao and Cris Villanueva) asked lots of questions, examined evidences, analyzed various information they have gotten from their interviews and still didnt reach a conclusion about the questions they want to clarify right from the start. The more they 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 amererenunciation 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 WordThe final segment of the film dubbed asKanya-Kanyang Rizalconveyed 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.