Protest MMFF pt.2 (from direk)
WHY WE SHOULD BOYCOTT THE MMFF
Una sa lahat, ang industriyang pelikula ay patay na.

I don’t believe that "the film industry is on its deathbed." It simply is dead and, as Doy del Mundo aptly states, "dying still."

Film as Commodity

Film is the youngest of all arts, having been invented a little more than a hundred years ago. It is also the only invention-based among them, relying on the cinematographe and its long-line of movie camera variations, to produce works. Film is a product of photography, but they have both become seemingly independent forms. While the latter has evolved into a reputable field of function and expression, film has become a “difficult art,” with its true nature and purpose still being argued upon until now.

The history of Hollywood implies that the development of film art had abruptly been inhibited by the plans of capitalists to establish it as a business. The commodification of film came with the establishment of the studio system. The most prominent and influential of them being, arguably, Hollywood, a community of film workers occupying what was once an agricultural lot that has been turned into studio space and housing. More than the conceptual idea of Hollywood, it is that actual, physical space that validated the creation of the new industry. Its establishment around 1911, more than a decade after cinema was born, should point out the short span of development for the new art.

Film as Material Art

Film is not like literature nor dance nor painting. It requires production, the process of producing the images on celluloid. And unlike the others, filmmaking is, by nature, a collective art. The involvement of numerous people in the making of a film (producers) and numerous people that belong to its viewing audience consumers), are what make filmmaking a lucrative business. Hollywood had created an efficient way to organize this, establishing a hierarchical system of employment for the production of movies. Independent productions, on the other hand, have explored alternative ways to produce movies, usually with flexible means of operation.

In short, film as material refers to money, that which sustains its existence and production in the market. Unlike a dancer who can express himself or herself freely to an audience, filmmaking requires money for its production.

What then is the point of independent filmmakers and those who believe in them when they speak of the so-called “evils” of the film industry and commercial cinema?

Film as Mass Medium

Filmmaker Kidlat Tahimik thinks of it as same with the nature of food. Commercial movies are likened to fast food offerings that are damaging to one’s health. Film critic Ray Carney blames the capitalist nature of filmmaking for producing works that are dishonest and untrue, detrimental to an audience’s consciousness (and soul, if one would like to extend its nature).

Because it has been established as a mass medium (early actualities were shown in vaudevilles as opening acts), film in the form of movies will always have its audience. It needs them, and in large numbers, for cinema to survive.

Independent productions do not simply equate to non-commercial cinema. In the West, independent works have proven that they can be successful and compete with industry-produced works in the box-office, aside from being critically acclaimed. Similarly, independent filmmaking does not necessarily equate to intelligent works.

The term ‘independent’ refers to how a film is made, and not to the content of the film. It refers to the mode of production outside the studio system, wherein works are made that are more willing to take risks in terms of film form and content.

What independent filmmakers want is a final cut; the last say on the outcome of their work. Producers readily dismiss their capabilities for fear of losing money. As such, most of the films coming from the industry are formulaic, of genre, and adhere to the star system. It is this capitalist nature of filmmaking that limits filmmakers, their works, and the audiences. Studio directors defend their works as a function of this, a conviction of principles of the film industry in return for the support and financial stability they receive. As a result, the aesthetics of these “commercial films” are normalized and have become standards for audiences to refer to. Again, we go back to the issue of limiting, both in skill and expression. And by limiting, by the nature of restricting in content and form, the producers of such works are underestimating the capability of audiences to comprehend what can be made available to them.

The nature of studios as "untouchables" because of their private nature is not helping this miserable state. People dismiss them as mere producers because it is their right as private groups to create their own works, as much as independent filmmakers have the right to produce their own. Yet, it is never a private endeavor. Since it is a form that affects and is patronized by such a large audience, producers of works have an obligation to create responsible works in order to cultivate a responsible audience.

The Perception of Elitism and the Lack of Film Consciousness

I do not think the independent scene is calling for obscure, incomprehensible and, arguably, elitist forms of expression in film. To begin with, no work created with honesty and sincerity will be incomprehensible. Yet it is this lack of film consciousness that has made people disgusted by the nature of independent cinema. It is this, going back to Kidlat Tahimik’s analogy, "McDonaldization" of the mind, of perception, that justifies the existence of "unhealthy movies."

There is something wrong with our national cinema when the country’s largest (and state-funded) film festival goes by foolish screening rules and regulations. There is something wrong when our filmmakers and producers argue that a film’s success equates to its box-office records, and train an audience to agree. There is something wrong when our film schools and its students dismiss a militant call for better films, and instead defend the industry, easily forgiving (and forgetting) its wrongdoings.

Film is never a mere form of entertainment. It affects the thinking of its audiences, and its audiences comprise of a multitude of moviegoers everyday, everywhere. This is what makes it a serious business.

It is a call for moviegoers to be vigilant. It is a call for better movies, better values, and a better cinema.

I-boycott ang Metro Manila Film Festival!

"The film industry is dead. Long live Philippine Cinema!"

- Raya Martin