José Nepomuceno and the creation of a Filipino national consciousness

José Nepomuceno and thecreation of a Filipinonational consciousness#�� / 0��!�� !�� !��!��

Nadi Tofighian

This essay assesses the contribution made byJosé Nepomuceno, the pioneer Filipino film-maker, to the Philippine quest for independenceand the raising of national consciousness. Ne-

pomuceno made silent films from 1919 to1933duringa period when national feelings for independencefrom the United States ran high. None of Ne-pomuceno’s films have survived, and only five ofaround 350–400 films produced in the Philippinesbefore 1944 are extant.1 This does not mean that thisperiod of Philippine film history should remain blank;rather, we should try to recreate the context in whichthey were produced, and understand the films in theirinteraction with the historical events of the period. Myapproach is similar to Giuliana Bruno’s study of ElviraNotari.Bruno recreated the lost films of theNeapolitanfilm-maker by studying film fragments, productionstills, film scripts, statements from film crews, thenovels and plays on which the films were based,newspaper articles and reviews, as well as studyingwho saw the movies, where they were shown andhow they were advertised.2 Her study is interdiscipli-nary, and draws on art history, architecture, literature,theatrical traditions and socioeconomic history torecreate and contextualise an account of the films ofElvira Notari.Researching earlyPhilippine film history,likewise, becomes an archaeological investigation,where the researcher looks for traces and fragmentswherewith to recreate lost objects.

Mark Ferro discusses film from the perspectiveof the medium being both a source and an agent ofhistory. A source of history in the sense that filmsportray and reflect historical periods; an agent in thesense that they contribute to shaping the course ofhistory.3 As all Nepomuceno’s films are lost, wecannot use extant films as a primary source. By going

through secondary sources, we can, however, get anunderstanding of the extent film functioned as anagent of history. Much of this essay is based onstudying the reception of Nepomuceno’s films in thenewspapers of the Philippines. Surviving newspa-pers from the period on microfilm at the NationalLibrary, Ateneo de Manila University Library and theLibrary of the University of Philippines Diliman havebeen examined to find articles about the films of JoséNepomuceno, together with articles that help defineand capture the spirit of the time.4 Newspapers inEnglish, Spanish and one of the Filipino languages,Tagalog, were consulted.5 The essay has three limi-tations. First, it focuses on the silent films of Ne-pomuceno, since by the time sound was introducedin domestic productions there were many other Fili-pinos engaged as directors and producers. Second,it focuses on Manila, as that was the centre of Ne-pomuceno’s filmmaking as well as the cultural andfinancial capital of the country.6 Third, the historypresented here is in many instances based on inter-pretation, in ascribing the intentions of Nepomuceno.

José Nepomuceno was born on 15 May 1893,and was still a child when the American-Spanish Warresulted in the Philippines becoming an Americancolony in 1898 after more than three centuries ofSpanish rule. His family lived near Teatro Oriente,where he frequently watched Spanish dramas

Film History, Volume 20, pp. 77–94, 2008. Copyright © John Libbey PublishingISSN: 0892-2160. Printed in United States of America

Nadi Tofighian is a doctoral candidate in the Depart-ment of Cinema Studies at Stockholm University. Hisresearch focuses on the economic history of cinemain Southeast Asia, distribution practices, trade pat-terns, and how colonising countries used cinema tospread culture and increase trade. Correspondenceto: [email protected]

FILM HISTORY: Volume 20, Number 1, 2008 – p. 77

(zarzuelas) and, later, European films.7 As he camefrom a well-off family, he had the possibility of study-ing fine arts at San Beda College and electricalengineering at the University of Ateneo de Manila.During this period, the U.S. citizens Albert Yearsleyand Edward Meyer Gross directed the first two fea-ture films produced in the Philippines, dealing withthe life and death of the national hero, José Rizal,which were released in August 1912.8 Three yearslater, in 1915, Nepomuceno and his brother Jesúsopened a photography store that became the mostprominent in Manila. This was the prelude to startinga film company, Malayan Movies (1917), and makingthe first Filipino film, Dalagang Bukid (CountryMaiden, 1919), based on a popular zarzuela of thetime.9 He also became an accredited correspondentof Pathé and Paramount News, and his newsreelswere shown abroad.10 Today we know José Ne-pomuceno as the father of Philippine movies, al-though not much is known about him and his films.It is difficult to estimate how many films Nepomucenomade during his career or ascertain which films hedirected and which ones he produced. According toreceived accounts, the number varies from around40 to 100 or even as many as 300.11 My archivalstudies show that he appears to have made 38 silentfilms.12

In the early years of the Philippine film industry,

the production system was based on director-pro-ducers such as José Nepomuceno (Malayan Mov-ies, 1917), Vicente Salumbides (Salumbides FilmCorporation, 1927) and Julian Manansala (BanahawPictures, 1929). As the pioneer Filipino filmmaker,Nepomuceno was often involved as a producer,cameraman or technical adviser in Filipino produc-tions in the 1920s. In 1917, when Malayan Movieswas established, the company was capitalised at100,000 Philippine pesos (PHP); in 1929, the com-pany’s capitalisation remained unchanged. The lackof capital resulted in low-cost films, and made Ne-pomuceno wary about taking risks, since the com-pany only dared to make movies that would bebox-office hits.13 When reporters from Manila Nuevavisited Malayan Movies’ studio in 1920, they wrote:‘It is in a hidden and neglected little street, where inevery second house there is a barber shop – thosesmall, identical, very numerous barber shops of Ma-nila. On its facade, low and unpainted, there is a bigsign that informs you: “Malayan Movies” “Entranceis prohibited”’.14 Malayan Movies (later Malayan Pic-tures Corporation) was the major domestic film pro-ducer during the silent era.15

The Philippines was primarily an agriculturalsociety where the majority of the population eitherworked on the land or as fishermen. The Philippinesconsists of many different language communities,the main ones being Tagalog, Ilocano and Visayan(Cebuano).16 The official national language was,therefore, the language of the coloniser – first Span-ish and later English. During the occupation by theUnited States, the governor-general, which was thehighest political position in the Philippines, and theheads of the executive departments, were all U.S.citizens. Around ten per cent of the population ofManila were foreigners, primarily from China, UnitedStates, Spain and Japan. Moreover, a Filipino highersocial class or intelligentsia, the ilustrados, could bedistinguished. Norman Owen characterised the ilus-trado as a person who had received a good educa-tion, and was well connected and wealthy.Nepomuceno could be considered an ilustrado as hehad access to the best education and came from aSpanish background.17 The government tried to si-lence or dampen the forces of independence, whichresulted in artistic, intellectual and political opposi-tion. Nepomuceno showed his resistance by makingfilms with stories that portrayed Filipino customs andtraditions. He also contributed significantly to thespread of the Tagalog language through his movies.

Fig. 1. ‘JoséNepomuceno,

standing by hiscamera in true

movie style.’(Graphic, 13

October 1928, 4).

[Unlessotherwise stated,

all Figures aretaken from the

microfilmcollection at theNational Library

of thePhilippines.]


78 FILM HISTORY Vol. 20 Issue 1 (2008) Nadi Tofighian

The status of cinema and theatreAt the beginning of the twentieth century, there werethree distinct theatres in Manila: Spanish, Tagalogand Chinese. The Spanish theatre presented zar-zuelas, concerts and operas for the elite who ob-served close ties with Spanish culture; the Tagalogtheatre presented the moro-moro, which depictedthe conflicts between Christians and Moors, andzarzuelas; the Chinese theatre was known for itsexotic and colourful performances.18 Vaudevillegained in prominence from the early 1920s. Themoro-moro was introduced by the Spaniards in theseventeenth century, and was performed in the ver-nacular languages in town plazas. When indigenouswriters started to write plays, the moro-moro becamesecularised, focusing on love stories set against thebackground of Christian-Moor hostilities.19 Althoughthe moro-moro was an outmoded form of theatre bythe time José Nepomuceno made his films, he usedthe moro-moro as a template for Moro Pirates (1931)in what was then regarded as spectacular action withthousands of extras. The zarzuela, created as a formof royal entertainment in Spain, came to the Philip-pines in the middle of the nineteenth century, andstarted to spread among the masses in the 1880swhen Filipino actors began to be cast. Its popularitywas, to a large extent, due to the prevalence of musicin the plays where dialogue was interwoven withsongs. The themes of the zarzuela were mostly takenfrom legends, myths, religious plays and situationsfrom contemporary life. Their success depended onthe way plays incorporated the romantic aspect ofthe moro-moro and related it to contemporary is-sues.20 The struggle for the audience between themoro-moro and the zarzuela, which was also a strug-gle between the culture of the common people andthat of the ilustrados, resulted in the zarzuela domi-nated the urban stage whereas the moro-moro wasvery popular in rural areas.21 This may explain whyNepomuceno decided to adapt a zarzuela (DalagangBukid) as his first film.

Dalagang Bukid premiered 12 September1919 at Teatro de la Comedia before moving to theEmpire Theatre.22 The zarzuela by Hermogenes Ila-gan on which the film was based premiered earlierthe same year, and starred Atang de la Rama andMarcelino Ilagan, who also starred in the film version.Dalagang Bukid is a love story about a young flowervendor, Angelita (Atang de la Rama), who is be-trothed by her parents to a rich, old man, Don Silves-tre, but loves Cipriano, a law student. The play

consists of three acts and includes eighteen songswhich made it suitable for screen adaptation with anaccompanying orchestra. The film opened with a liveperformance by Atang de la Rama, where she sang‘Nabasag ang Banga’ (Breaking of the clay jar) off-screen.23 Nepomuceno chose to adapt DalagangBukid for the screen as he, rightly, believed it wouldbe a success since Hermogenes Ilagan was the mostprominent zarzuela writer at the time, the zarzuela hadproved to be a box office hit, and the stars were wellknown.24

The film showed many of the woes plaguingFilipino society, as well as issues relevant for thesociety of the time: gambling, Americanisation, infi-delity, poverty, the power of money versus the powerof love, parental views on marriage, and corruptgovernment officials. The parents, who had largegambling debts (from cock fighting), did not careabout the well-being of their daughter but wanted ason-in-law who could give them financial security. Areview in Manila Nueva the day following the premierestated: ‘The home of Angelita, the pretty heroine, isa correct picture of many Philippine families, al-though it somehow exaggerates the negativetones’.25 The central role and symbolic value of theFilipino national hero and writer, José Rizal, in Filipinosociety can also be seen since his framed portraithangs in the home of Angelita in Dalagang Bukid aswell as in the sequel, La Venganza de Don Silvestro(The Vengeance of Don Silvestre).26 The adaptationwas, however, sharply criticised in The Citizen: ‘thefilm adaptation … is all that the play is not. As oftenas not, the story is an incoherent jumble of scenes

Fig. 2. ‘Animportantmoment in thefilm “DalagangBukid” thatpremieres tonightat the Teatro de laComedia.’ (‘Unmomentoculminante de lapelícula“DalagangBukid”, que seestrena estanoche en elTeatro de laComedia.’)(Manila Nueva(13 September1919): 15).


José Nepomuceno and the creation of a Filipino national consciousness FILM HISTORY Vol. 20 Issue 1 (2008) 79

that border on the childish and the ridiculous and theexotic. … There is everything that drags down the filmto the level of disgusting caricature of Philippinelife.’27

Nepomuceno was influenced by the themes ofzarzuelas he had seen in his youth, and most of hisfilms revolved around a love story, just as in zarzuelasand moro-moros. Mutya ng Pamilihan (The Pearl ofthe Markets, 1929) is a simple love story between apoor Filipino girl and the son of an aristocratic family.The true and pure love of the couple overcomes classbarriers and the opposition of a proud mother.28 Thequestion of poverty and class barriers was also visu-ally present in the films of Nepomuceno. Figure 3shows how the poverty of the main characters in LaMariposa Negra (The Black Butterfly, 1920) was visu-ally contrasted by the modernity and wealth that theautomobile signifies. Other films that revolvedaround a love story included: Dalagang Bukid and itssequel, La Venganza de Don Silvestro, Hot Kisses(1927); Ang Lumang Simbahan (The Old Church,1928), Sa Landas ng Pag-ibig (The Road to Love,1929); Ang Anak sa Ligaw (Child Out of Wedlock,1930); and Pugad ng Pag-ibig (Nest of Love, 1932).When newspapers printed a production still, it wasusually a picture from a love scene, often describedas a ‘crucial scene of the movie’.

Studying the reception of early Filipino films incontemporary newspapers provides an under-standing of the perceived role and status of cinemain the 1920s. An article by Miguel G. Luna in TheCitizen in 1919, published just days after the pre-

miere of Dalagang Bukid, saw the positive influenceand use of cinema:

The enjoyment it gives to millions and thepatriotic and highly humane service it rendersis the quintessence of the picture-play. Canany one honestly fail to be impressed at thegreat role played by the motion picture in help-ing win the war? … This is a splendid exampleof the far-reaching influence of the so-calledsilent drama. With this end in view, can themotion picture fail to be of immense value tothe Philippines? With the great possibilitiesand the tremendous influence it will play inpicturing real Philippine conditions to theworld, will it be a matter of mere speculation tosuggest that we start now producing filmssymbolic of Philippine films and ideals?29

Film was gaining popularity, but it was still notregarded as art and culture. The monthly CulturaSocial, which was one of the few papers dedicatedto culture, wrote mostly about literature, music andpainting. A regular item that the paper carried con-cerning film was a section titled ‘Endorsed MotionPictures’, which listed predominantly U.S. films thata Catholic association recommended people tosee.30 The paper also occasionally stressed the im-portance of censorship in the movies, in order todefend public morality and preserve the innocenceof children.31 Graphic, on the other hand, pointed outthat it was more important that stage performanceswere censored since ‘Filipinos look upon life por-trayed in the movies as “foreign” and incur very littledanger of being corrupted by lurid suggestive moviethemes and scenes’.32 An editorial in The Inde-pendent in 1922 wrote about the ‘intellectual degen-eracy’ of young people: ‘In the bookstores andnewstand [sic], more copies of “Motion Picture” and“Photo Play” are sold than “Noli Me Tangere”, “LesMiserables”, or the works of Byron and Shake-speare’.33 Three conclusions can be drawn from theuse of Motion Picture and Photoplay: first, U.S. maga-zines were imported and widely read; second, theinterest in film demonstrated by young people wassteadily growing; and third, film magazines werethought to portray something ‘light, frivolous anddegenerate’.34

Film and theatre initially helped each othergrow, as competition from the cinema increased thequality of theatrical plays.35 An analysis of newspaperarticles during the late 1910s and early 1920s shows

Fig. 3. ‘Anotherfilm by MalayanMovies. One of

the most movingmoments of La

Mariposa Negra.’(‘Otra película de

“MalayanMovies”. Uno de

los momentosmás

emocionantes de“La Mariposa

Negra”.’) (ManilaNueva (28

February 1920):7).



an erratic description of the development of theatre.Some articles are positive; in 1919, for instance, TheCitizen wrote: ‘There is a reawakening, a new impulsethat foreshadows the beginning of a change, a flow-ering, as it were, of the long-silent emotions of therace in the new Tagalog dramas’.36 And in 1920,Manila Nueva observed: ‘Who said that the SpanishDrama would die in the Philippines? … Theatre en-thusiasts and the general public that frequent thiskind of shows are doing great’.37 This indicates thattheatre and cinema could flourish simultaneously,and that the rise of one did not necessarily translateinto the decline of the other. An editorial in Graphicin 1921 opined that ‘the moving picture … came andgreatly multiplied the number of theatre fans’.38 Itthus seems possible that film and theatre reciprocallytriggered and inspired each other. On the other hand,an article in The Citizen in 1919 addressed the de-cline of traditional drama due to the influence offoreign films, and stressed the importance of revivingtraditional drama to counter foreign influences: ‘thecharacters typical of the native drama are forgottenin the rush of an endless demand for the exotic. Theflative productions have given way before the rapidgrowth of the moving pictures.’39

In the 1920s the zarzuela started to becomerepetitious, using stereotyped characters andclichéd situations, instead of being socially critical.Simultaneously, film started to become a more fash-ionable form of entertainment, and prestigious thea-tres began to screen films instead of plays.40 Anapparent change in attitude towards cinema oc-curred at the beginning of 1927 when The Inde-pendent presented two editorials on the film industryin the Philippines. The editorials indicate that thischange of view was partly due to the films of Ne-pomuceno, who had demonstrated the importanceof domestic filmmaking. One editorial observed: ‘Thecinema constitutes a lucrative business everywhereand almost all the civilized countries try to have anart of dramatic photoplay of their own as a manifes-tation of their culture and economic vitality. … It is,therefore, necessary that the capitalists should offertheir patronage and cooperation to the Nepomucenobrothers, the originators of this new industry of thecountry.’41 A second editorial in 1927 noted:

The efforts of the Nepomuceno brothers todevelop the film industry in the Philippines withnative elements – atmosphere, characters,episodes, customs, etc. besides the person-

nel and material – deserve commendation andfull cooperation. The films so far manufacturedby them are quite acceptable, and show prin-cipally the magnitude of their efforts, of thework, and of the large capital invested. Thesum total of these efforts and means must betaken into consideration by patriotic citizens,in order that such efforts might not be wastedand that the community might derive full bene-fits from the introduction of so important andlucrative a business as the movie industry,which involves the cultivation of the dramaticart by the people and the propagation of newideas and the refinement of the artistic taste ofthe masses.42

Cinema gradually replaced live theatre as apreferred leisure activity as a consequence of twoprocesses. First, through associating cinema withthe cultural values that attended theatre, film becamea form of entertainment for the well-to-do. In manyWestern countries cinema became a mass culturewhich attracted an audience that was not accus-tomed to consuming art. This is contrasted with thePhilippine tradition where the zarzuela and moro-moro were already a mass culture, performed andwatched in villages across the Islands. As the lan-guage of theatre was either Spanish or Tagalog, thedecline of theatre started as the process of Ameri-canisation and the spread of the English languageincreased and gained dominance. Second, the con-trol of cinema and the entertainment businesspassed into the hands of the major production anddistribution companies from the United States afterthe First World War. This was reflected by the namesof the entertainment venues. Venues with namesincluding Theatre were in a vast majority until theearly 1910s, when venues including Cinematograph(or Cine, Motion Picture, Cinema or Film) graduallybecame more common, as U.S. companies andcitizens, taking over the exhibition venues, were keento mark a change from the past. The theatre did notlose its audience in the provinces, but it lost thepatronage of the ilustrados, and in Manila theatre waslimited to campus auditoriums by the end of the1930s, a situation that has not changed to this day.

Colonisation, education andlanguageBy exporting their theatre to the Philippines and giv-ing it a Filipino content, the Spanish had a well-func-



tioning tool to spread their culture, ideology andreligion, and win over the masses.43 The UnitedStates also used popular culture to spread its ideol-ogy and culture when the Philippines became a U.S.territory, through film as well as the song and danceprogrammes of vaudeville. Nick Deocampo de-scribes the process and effect of having new colo-nisers: ‘The string of colonization has created layersof cultural formation and expression. … each layer ofcultural expression was challenged with the entry ofother cultural influences’.44 For Deocampo, the effectof colonisation on the national cinema involves imi-tation, indigenisation, parody, acceptance and resis-tance: imitation of western films; the indigenisationof foreign cultural elements, a process already seenwith the Spanish zarzuela; the use of parody to distortforeign films and thereby laugh at the foreign; anacceptance of the impact and influence of foreigncultural elements; and resistance against the colo-niser by making films critical of colonialism.45 ForClodualdo del Mundo, the colonised Filipino becameculturally estranged.46 Del Mundo sees colonisationas a process of adaptation, negotiation and indigeni-sation, a process which he terms native resistance:‘Resistance, in my view, is innate to the native. Thecolonized do not merely absorb foreign cultural influ-ences like a sponge. Influence happens through acomplex process of adaptation, negotiation, and,eventually, indigenization. I refer to this process asnative resistance and we see this in early Philippinecinema.’47

Francis B. Harrison, the first Democratappointed governor-general of the Philippines(1913–1921) started a process in which a degree ofautonomy was granted the Philippines. When theRepublican Party won the elections in 1920, GeneralLeonard Wood was appointed the new governor-general, and the process of independence was dras-tically slowed down. Philippine dependence on theUnited States grew with trade. In Rosenstock’s Ma-nila City Directory (RMCD) for 1905, the Philippineswas described ‘as an American colony, they are thenatural market for American goods and the naturalfield for American investment’.48 In 1920 the UnitedStates had become the largest trading partner for thePhilippines, and during the years 1925–1935 an av-erage of 63 per cent of Filipino imports were from theUnited States.49 As economic dependence on theUnited States grew, many Filipino politicians nolonger demanded ‘immediate and absolute’ inde-pendence, but rather focused on free trade and

economic questions.50 This development influencedNepomuceno’s filmmaking. As colonial power tight-ened its grip on the Philippines, many intellectualsand artists felt the urge to take a clearer politicalstance. Nepomuceno started to stress Filipino cul-ture in his films, and gave the vast majority of his filmsa Tagalog title.

The colonial mentality of the United States isapparent in publications of the time, and governor-general Wood was hailed by the U.S. citizens ofManila. In 1919, an editorial in the pro-AmericanManila Times observed that it is ‘way too early forindependence’, and that it was not an option in thecoming few years.51 In another editorial, the paperwrote that the flag ‘flies today as a … token ofthanksgiving for the unselfish, altruistic labors of afoster father, who for the past 21 years has endeav-ored to lead a young and inexperienced people’.52

An article in The Independent in 1920 stated: ‘Onething should not be overlooked: the sooner inde-pendence is granted to the Filipinos the stronger willbe the ties that bind them to the American common-wealth and to the American People’.53 An editorialcartoon in The Independent in 1920 depicts a com-mon view among the emerging population who hadreceived their education during the U.S. occupation:an American and a Filipino hold hands across conti-nents under the title ‘Friends for Ever’. The accom-panying editorial states:

… our lot as a free and independent people isintimately linked to the power and glory of thegreatest Republic on the globe. … we espe-cially greet this most loyal and generous allywhich any people could have in the history ofthe human race, this ally and friend whichtransplanted to our country its political, social,and cultural institutions for our good and assure pledge of its friendship and protection,converting into a liberating and humanitarianaction foreign intervention in weak countries,and teaching that the customary colonial pol-icy of European powers ought to be coopera-tion, production and emancipation.54

The change of occupational power led to manychanges in culture and tradition, from a conservativeCatholic view to a more liberal perspective. Norms,values and authorities (formal and informal) werescrutinised and questioned. Several articles arguedthat ‘the Filipinos [were] becoming occidental,adopting American habits and norms of conduct’,



often using the change in fashion as an example.55

An article in Graphic in 1928 summed up the changein culture: ‘Gone were the days when the whole towngoes to church. Instead, we have busy and eventfulSaturday nights, attending cockfights, boxing bouts,card games, dances and what not.’56 The primarymeans through which the United States asserted itscultural influence was through an ambitious plan ofmass education in order to develop human re-sources but also to subdue and control the colo-nised.57 This process is confirmed in a letter from theformer governor-general, Francis B. Harrision, to thePhilippine Commissioner to the United States, IsauroGabaldon, quoted in an editorial in The Independentin 1928: ‘Of course the public school system wasdesigned to Americanize your young people, and inso doing to destroy utterly your own culture, but onemight have hoped that in the University there wouldsurvive the real cultural traditions of your people’.58

The first step in the Americanisation process was theuse of English as the language of education. TheEnglish language created a barrier between genera-tions, and explains many of the changes that oc-curred in the cultural sphere.

The question of language, whether to use Eng-lish or Spanish, held a prominent position in thepublic arena during the 1920s; rarely was there anyserious discussion about using one of the vernacu-lars. A cartoon in The Independent in 1920 is indica-tive of the climate. It presents a picture of Maria Clara(an icon representing the Philippines, and also thename of the heroine in José Rizal’s novel, Noli MeTangere) telling two young boys, ‘My sons, to under-stand each other you must learn both languages’.The accompanying editorial depicts the Philippinesas a bilingual country and describes the importanceof mastering English and Spanish.59 At the end of thenineteenth century only 5 per cent of the populationof the Philippines spoke Spanish, but it had manyproponents as it was a distinguishing feature of theilustrados and a way of communicating betweenlanguage communities.60 The Independent heldSpanish under high esteem: in an editorial in 1922,the paper described Spanish as ‘one of the valuableelements in our tradition and in our history … [which]distinguishes us from the other peoples of Asia andthe Oceanic islands.’ It also described the Spanishlanguage as ‘this beautiful Philippine language’.61

The first Filipino-run daily newspaper in Eng-lish, The Philippines Herald, was started in 1920. Inan editorial the same year, the paper described the

progress of the English language and the importanceof learning it for business purposes. Despite thisdevelopment, the editorial concluded by emphasis-ing the usefulness of Spanish as a tool in the socialsphere.62 An editorial in The Independent in 1927summed up the view held by most ilustrados: ‘TheEnglish language has come with the mission of de-nationalizing the Filipinos and to Americanize them.Spanish … [has] the mission of keeping alive thespirit of country traditions, and among them theCatholic religion of our fathers’.63 American publica-tions provide a different view of the matter. In 1911,RMCD wrote: ‘The Spanish language, which wasconfined to a few, and distinguished classes … hasbeen succeeded by the democratic English spokenby the mass of the youth of the country, and seek[s]to unite the people whom Spain ruled by keepingdivided’.64 Despite articles and editorials in favour ofmaintaining Spanish, there were signs of an impend-ing crisis: for instance, the demand for Spanishbooks dramatically decreased. A cartoon in The In-dependent showed the burial of the Spanish lan-guage, and the accompanying editorial noted that‘the Spanish language is disappearing and will, in allprobability, disappear with the present generation’.65

With this background it is hardly surprising thatNepomuceno gave five of his first six movies aSpanish title. In the late 1920s a majority of his filmshad a Tagalog title (see Table below). At a time whenthe newspapers discussed whether English or Span-ish should be the national language, Nepomucenomade a vital push for Tagalog, which was the lan-guage spoken in Manila. Vernacular languages hadbeen politically suppressed during the Spanish co-lonial period.66 As newspapers started to becomecommonplace around the turn of the century, moreopportunities were created for writers, especially inTagalog, as most papers that were not printed inSpanish or English were printed in Tagalog. A 1926editorial in The Independent reported that newspa-pers in indigenous dialects had steadily increased,and that illustrated weeklies, many of which special-ised in love stories, were particularly popular, helpingto spread Tagalog culture.67 Graphic reported on aseminar held at Santo Tomas University in 1929. Thegeneral view at the seminar was that there was aneed for a local national language, and that Tagalogwas the most suitable candidate as it had the largestvocabulary and highest number of publications. Thereport also stated that the Filipinos in the UnitedStates and Hawaii spoke Tagalog, even if they were



from other language communities.68 The spread ofone of the vernacular languages, through printedmaterials, within a country is one of the factors thatBenedict Anderson points out as essential in creatinga national consciousness.69 As Tagalog became themain vernacular language in novels and newspa-pers, it also contributed to national identity, beingrecognised, in due course, as the basis of thenational language, Filipino. In the Philippines, wherethe literacy level was low, the films of Nepomucenoplayed a key role in establishing Tagalog as the mainvernacular language. Tagalog films were exhibitedthroughout the islands, and thereby not only helpedcreate a national consciousness, but a specificallyFilipino-Tagalog consciousness.70

Table 1: Language of film titles

1919–1925 1926–1930 1931–1933

Tagalog 2 10 13

Spanish 5 1 1

English 0 3 3

[La Mujer Filipina (The Filipino Woman, 1927) was re-leased with both a Spanish and an English title. MariaLuisa (1930) is not classified in any of the above cate-gories as the title is a personal name.]

Gradually, Spanish disappeared, and is now aforgotten language. Today, there are two official lan-guages in the Philippines: Filipino, and English.President Manuel L. Quezon proclaimed the lan-guage based on Tagalog as the country’s nationallanguage in 1937, and in 1946 when the Philippinesgained independence from the United States, Taga-log (Filipino) became the official language of thePhilippines.71 The spread of Tagalog and its estab-lishment as the national language was to a largeextent due to the movies. When the talkies came thedominance of Tagalog language and culture in-creased, as they were made in Tagalog (except theregional cinema in Cebu where the films were madein Visayan). Nepomuceno made the first talkie, AngPunyal na Ginto (The Golden Dagger, 1933), usingTagalog. The film was a great success, and was stillshowing in some provinces two years after its re-lease. The Filipino sound film underlined the impor-tance of a native, national language. Joe Quirino hasargued that the Tagalog talkie ‘inculcated upon thepeople the love for their national language. Evennon-Tagalog learned the national language bymerely seeing Tagalog talkies.’72

Creating a national consciousnessFilipino cinema could be assessed in the context ofits national history and cultural formation in that Ne-pomuceno drew on existing cultural traditions, em-phasised the most Filipino concerns, and gave themcinematic form. However, since Filipino nationalidentity did not really exist in the Philippines at thetime, we might more accurately propose that Ne-pomuceno helped create ‘an imagined community’through his films. Cinema took the role that novelsand newspapers previously had as the carrier of thenarratives of the nation.73 A narrative gap in thenational history had opened as a consequence of thechange of occupying powers as well as the re-ju-venated independence movement.74 As novels ortraditional media did not fill the gap, cinema, particu-larly the films of Nepomuceno, became the form thatbest articulated Filipino life. His films had a strongsocial impact, as they were very popular and widelyseen by Filipinos from all walks of life. Ang LumangSimbahan was described as a ‘Filipino super-pro-duction’ that appeals to all social classes, and it wasone of the longest-run films on the Manila screen.75

When his films were exhibited at Cine Lux, the usualticket prices of 30 and 50 centavos were raised to 50centavos and 1 peso, and yet there were hundredsof people waiting to get a ticket.76 This can be con-trasted to the great Filipino artists in the fields ofpainting, theatre and literature who, according tocontemporary newspapers, were not appreciated bythe Filipino public.77 For this reason, Nepomuceno isdistinguished from his contemporary Filipino artists:his films were a point of unity among Filipinos, andplayed an essential part in the creation of a nationalconsciousness, counteracting the process de-scribed by Milan Kundera wherein ‘[a] nation whichloses awareness of its past gradually loses its self’.78

As Nepomuceno was the pioneer Filipino filmmaker,the images that he reproduced strongly influencedviewers by sharing his vision of Filipino charac-teristics.79

Ella Shohat and Robert Stam have argued thatcinema-going facilitated the association and identifi-cation of the urban elite in the colonising country withthe colonising empire.80 The argument is applicableto the Philippines, where almost all exhibited filmshad a Western perspective. Manila was the citywhere Hispanic culture was most influential, butwhere cultural influence from the United States pre-vailed. As Nepomuceno started making films from aFilipino perspective, the association that the ilustra-



dos felt to the colonisers gradually decreased. In-itially, Nepomuceno had to convince theatre ownersto show Tagalog films, as there was prejudiceagainst locally-made films. After the success of hispioneering work, theatres gradually opened up forlocally-made productions.81 An analysis of newspa-per articles about the Tagalog cinema and the roleof cinema in 1919 and 1920 shows that almost all thearticles connect film to the distinctly Filipino context,and often indicate that independence is near. Anarticle in The Citizen, after the premiere of DalagangBukid, associated the film with the emergence of adistinctive national cinema: ‘the forerunner of manymore films that have for their motif the depicting ofthe Philippine life and social conditions … peculiar tothe type of our culture and civilization’.82 The samearticle linked the emergence of cinema to inde-pendence:

Then there is the much-talked of Philippineindependence. It is trite to discuss it here anyfurther, but the motion picture appears to havesome bearing on the subject. It is too wellknown to need mention that the great bulk ofthe American people is yet in the dark as to ourtrue conditions. They can not distinguish aFilipino from a Chinese or Japanese. Andworst of all, too many of them think we are stilla lot of ‘savages’ and ‘headhunters’ incapableof self-government. Such erroneous ideas,common everywhere in America, are a greatdrawback to our national aspiration. … [The]coming of a new industrial enterprise has won-derful possibilities as an aid to the early acqui-sition of our own sovereignty.83

It is hard to define Nepomuceno’s films aseither Filipino or Tagalog. Cinema cannot reflect allaspects of a given national cultural identity, espe-cially when that identity is not homogenous but con-sists of many different language communitieslinguistically united through the language of the col-oniser. As Manila was the political as well as thecultural capital of the country, the city graduallyspread its Tagalog culture and language to otherparts of the Islands. Cinema was a catalyst in thisprocess. Deocampo discusses how the regional Ta-galog culture became synonymous with national cul-ture. As capital city, the relation between Manila andthe Philippines became metonymic. The Tagalogculture of Manila became the (self-proclaimed) rep-resentative of Filipino culture, a culturally advanced

urban area that represented a poor, rural-basedpopulation.84 The indigenous cinema that was cre-ated was, in that sense, not native; it was the edu-cated ilustrados’ view of what constituted the nativewhich was reinforced through the production of filmsand the staging of plays.

As there was no domestic competition in filmproduction, there was no need to use local or re-gional settings to attract an audience. Instead, filmsfocused on Philippine nature and daily life, thingseveryone could relate to. Nepomuceno travelledthroughout the Philippines to find picturesque loca-tions to shoot scenes for his films.85 These viewsgave a physical dimension to the creation of animagined community. The choice of the popular Ta-galog zarzuela, Dalagang Bukid, for his first film,suggests that he wanted to portray what is typical ofthe Philippines. His film, Mutya ng Pamilihan, wasregarded by Graphic as ‘a film distinctly Filipino withtruistic splendour in every respect’ with scenes ‘richin local color and so true to life’.86 Lena Strait Panejaclaims that since the Philippines had experiencedtwo wars around the turn of the century, early Filipinofilms reflected the people’s desire to return to thepeaceful, idyllic countryside, a concern which, sheargues, can be exemplified in Nepomuceno’s Dala-gang Bukid, Ligaw na Bulaklak (Stray Flowers, 1932)and Bahay Kubo (Nipa Hut, 1938).87 Although thereis some truth in her claim, it is more reasonable tobelieve that the primary reason for showing Philip-pine landscapes was to make pictorial attractionsavailable to the whole population, thereby contribut-ing to creating an imagined community. Besides

Fig. 4. ‘MalayanMovies. Scenefrom the lovelymovie The wiltedrosebud that willpremiere soon inManila.(‘MalayanMovies. Escenade la bonitapelícula “Elcapullomarchito” que seestrenará enbreve enManila.’) (ManilaNueva (17 April1920): 9).



films that were cinematographically patriotic be-cause they portrayed the country as idyllic, some ofNepomuceno’s films can be classified as patrioticwith regard to the issues they portrayed. One suchfilm was La Hija de Revolucion (The Daughter of theRevolution, 1931); another was Punit na Bandila (TornFlag, 1939) that depicted the bravery of a Filipinosoldier.

The only silent film by Nepomuceno that has ageographical location named in the title is Lilies ofBenguet (1931).88 Other titles refer to non-specificplaces, such as a market (Mutya ng Pamilihan),church (Ang Lumang Simbahan) and cemetery (AngMulto sa Libingan/The Ghost in the Cemetery, 1931).Judging from the film titles, many of his films hadChristian themes. His first film with an apparentlyChristian theme was Krus Na Lihim (The SecretCross, 1925). Other films with clear Biblical subjectswere Mary, I love you (or The Miracles of the Virgin ofAntipolo, 1926) and Milagro ng Nazareno Sa Quiapo(Miracle of the Nazarene in Quiapo, 1937). Both filmsalso had a connection to different parts of Manila,Antipolo and Quiapo (where Nepomuceno wasborn). The ninth of January is the day of the annualfiesta in Quiapo when the statue of the Black Naza-rene, a carved hardwood image of Christ bearing thecross, is carried in procession around Quiapo.89

Other films with seemingly religious themes, includeAng Monjita (The Young Nun, 1931), Sa Pinto ngLangit (At Heaven’s Gate, 1932), Satanas (1932), SaPaanan ng Krus (At the Foot of the Cross, 1935)90 andSantong Diablo (A Devil Saint, 1936).

Anthony Smith argues that films, as well asother art forms, contribute to creating a vision of anation by showing myths, histories, rituals, symbolsand traditions. These national mythologies are usedby the ruling elites to influence and affect the emo-tions and shared memories of the masses.91 In thePhilippines, myths and mysticism played an impor-tant role, especially among the older generation. Inan article in The Philippine Review in 1920, Luis Riveraconcluded his discussion of the moral charac-teristics of the Filipino people by stating that despitethe influence of the United States and Europe, it isthe native and the most ancient culture that prevails,since ‘[t]he spirit of our forefathers [is] the ever pre-sent motive of our conduct’.92 Mythology and folkloreplayed a prevalent role in Filipino society, particularlyduring the first decades of the twentieth century.Philippine folk stories are filled with ghosts andogres, and each region has its own mythical mon-

sters. Nepomuceno made some films where he de-picted different aspects of Philippine mythology. AngLihim ni Bathala (The Secret Pagan God, 1931) isabout Bathala, the Divine figure of ancient Tagalogtribes. According to legend, the main enemies ofBathala were the lizard god, Bakonawa (the ruler ofthe Underworld), and his evil companions, such asthe aswang and the manananggal. Nepomucenoalso made horror movies depicting local, folkloricmonsters: Ang Manananggal (The Witches, 1927)was based on a Visayan myth about vampire-likefemale creatures that suck the foetuses of pregnantwomen. Mang Tano: Nuno ng mga Aswang (Old ManTano: Vampire’s Forbear, 1932) was also based on aVisayan vampire-like mythical creature, aswang.Tianak (Ogre, 1932) was about unbaptised babieswho turn into some kind of monsters when they die.These titles indicate that Nepomuceno’s films por-trayed, and thus revitalised, deeply-rooted Filipinotraditions and customs. Again we return to Smith:

This is why nationalist intellectuals seek torediscover and authenticate pre-existing col-lective myths, symbols, values, memories andtraditions of ‘the people’, and to locate the‘old-new’ nation they seek to recreate within itsevolutionary ethnic framework. The artist andthe writer alike have been at the heart of thisproject of popular national representation andrenewal, clothing the ideal of the nation and itshistorical myths, memories and symbols inpalpable, dynamic forms which are easily ac-cessible to the mass of the ‘national’ member-ship.93

Although Nepomuceno is portrayed as a pa-triot who tried to show the typically Filipino, he wasinfluenced by being colonised. For instance, in thetwo photographs we have of him, he wears a Westernsuit with a tie rather than the traditional Filipino formalmenswear, barong Tagalog. Furthermore, most ofhis cast were light-skinned, as can be seen from theproduction stills. A still from Sampaguita (1928) wasaccompanied by the following text in Graphic: ‘Whilethe costume is typically Filipino, the features of play-ers may not seem as typical, imparting an atmos-phere of the Occident rather than the Philippines’.94

In this respect, the parallel that Charles Musserdraws between Black cinema and Filipino cinema(between Oscar Micheaux and José Nepomuceno)is relevant.95 The similarities that Musser points to arethat both filmmakers were prolific, that they fostered



controversy to ensure success at the box office, andthat they were criticised for the low production valuesof their films in their search for an alternative ‘national’cinema. Ideologically they may have shared manycommon features, but there were also significantdifferences in their environment and surroundings:Micheaux lived in New York, in the centre of a vibrantfilm and theatre culture where he had many contem-poraries who shared his ideas; Nepomuceno was apioneer filmmaker in the Philippines, and did nothave any colleagues during the first five or six yearsin which he worked. The principal difference was thatJosé Nepomuceno was part of a majority beingsuppressed by the minority, whereas OscarMicheaux was part of a minority suppressed by themajority.

This brings to mind Frantz Fanon’s analysis ofthe role of the native intellectual, which he divides intothree different stages.96 First, assimilation, whereinthe artist learns from the culture of the coloniser. Ipropose that Nepomuceno did this by mastering thearts of photography and film. Second, Fanon ob-serves that the indigenous intellectual revisits tradi-tional culture. This is what Nepomuceno achievedduring the first decade of his filmmaking career withfilms such as Dalagang Bukid, Ang Manananggal,Sampaguita, Tianak and Bahay Kubo where he rep-resented the Philippine landscape and typical Fili-pino customs.97 The third stage, which Fanoncharacterises as ‘the fighting phase’, is when theartist tries to awaken the people and contribute to anational literature (here I interpret ‘literature’ in abroad sense). Nepomuceno’s films became morepolitical and nationalistic during the first years of the1930s with films such as Noli Me Tangere, Punit naBandila and La Hija de Revolucion.

Nepomuceno was not alone, however, in thisendeavour.98 What Nepomuceno did for cinema hadits parallels in other art forms. In the aftermath of theFirst World War, many of the arts received a renewedsense of patriotic and nationalistic purpose. The roleof the arts in the independence movement also grew,as political influence seemed increasingly futile. Aneditorial in The Citizen in 1920 discussed the nation-alist elements in the paintings of Fabian de la Rosawho demonstrated a ‘preference for Philippine sce-nic beauties’ and in the efforts of the AsociaciónMusical de Filipinas to collect typically nationalsongs. The Citizen saw these movements as at-tempts ‘leading towards the same general goal – thenationalization of our whole social life’.99 Ne-

pomuceno used (live) Filipino songs in many of hisfilms, some of which bore titles of folksongs, Sam-paguita (1930), Leron-Leron Sinta (1939), Kung Kita’yKapiling (If You’re With Me, 1941). The 1920s experi-enced a growth in indigenous music, partly becauseof the films that immortalised Filipino folksongs(kundiman).100 Furthermore, the Tagalog zarzuelaexpressed a deep-felt hope for freedom and inde-pendence. Many present-day scholars refer to theTagalog theatre of the first decades of the twentiethcentury as a nationalist theatre, as it kept the fire offreedom burning.

Compared with the 1910s, the 1920s and1930s show a trend from adapting zarzuelas toadapting novels for the screen. Resil B. Mojaresdescribes the plots of early Filipino vernacular novelsas being very conventional with stereotyped situ-ations and characters. They were often sociallyaware love stories, where the lovers were separatedby their parents and class.101 This was also a com-mon plot for the several Tagalog novels that Ne-pomuceno adapted for the screen.102 Mutya ngPamilihan was based on a novel by Remigio Mat.Castro; Ang Lumang Simbuhan was based on po-ems by Florentino Collantes, who appeared andchanted the poem at every screening;103 Sa Pinto ngLangit was adapted from a poem by José Corazónde Jesús; ‘Magkabilang Mukha (Opposite Sides ofthe Face, 1933) is a story about Filipino gangstersalso written by José Corazon de Jesús; Sa LandásNang Pagibig (The Road of Love, 1929) was adaptedfrom a novel by Deogracias A. del Rosario, where theleading woman chooses between a wealthy life witha corrupt man and a poor life with an honest man;and Nepomuceno’s first talkie, Ang Punyal na Ginto,was an adaptation of a novel by Antonio G. Sempiowritten in the same year. Other works Nepomucenofilmed in the 1930s include F.J. Galauran’s AngMonghita, Ang Anak sa Ligaw, Dr Kuba (Dr Hunch-back, 1933) and Punit na Bandila, Lazaro Francisco’sSa Paanan ng Krus (1935) and Teofilo E. Sauco’s AngMagmamani (The Peanut Vendor, 1938).104 José Ne-pomuceno’s films did what the great Filipino novelscould not manage to do, since literacy in the Philip-pines was not universal. In 1930 Nepomucenoadapted José Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere for the screen,in which he visualised many inequalities created bythe coloniser, whether from Spain or the UnitedStates. The novel and the film are about a young andwealthy Filipino who returns to the Philippines afterstudying in Europe only to find a country filled with



injustice, corruption and abuse by Spanish friars andthe colonial government. Although the film is a strictadaptation of the novel (thus criticising the Spanishoccupants), it can be interpreted as a parallel to andcritique of U.S. occupation, and in the advertisementfor the film, the Filipino dimension was stressed(‘Made in the Philippines by Filipinos’). This was alsothe only film where Nepomuceno encountered prob-lems with the censor.105

Re-constructing an image of women

Nepomuceno started making films at a time whenwomen’s suffrage had relatively recently been se-cured in some Western countries. In the Philippines,women received the vote in 1933. The status ofwomen and the question of suffrage was, therefore,one of the most frequently debated topics in Philip-pine newspapers in the 1920s, matched only by thequestion of independence and language. The Inde-

pendent, Sunday Tribune and Graphic had regularsections devoted to issues relevant for women, andpublished articles that discussed the changing roleof women. Broadly speaking, the debate becamepolarised between one faction that hailed the ad-vance of women, and a second faction that believedthe development was disruptive and praised thewoman of yesterday. In the first camp, Graphic pub-lished an article in 1927 which argued that the con-tribution of women to society had increased due toadvances in education as well as the Christian relig-ion.106 Even positive articles, however, sometimesreferred to women as the ‘weaker sex’. This bringsus to the second camp, here exemplified by an articlepublished in Graphic in 1927:

If I were asked who is the better, wiser, happierwoman – the brilliant, business-like, inde-pendent, modern suffragist, or the maternaldomestic, normal old-fashioned woman withhome and babies – I would certainly answerthat it is the latter. … Women in politics? Whatmess it would be! Woman suffrage is nothingmore than a synonym of divorce and flapper-ism – cosmetics, bob-hair and short skirts –and all that are revolting to our old customsand traditions. … Let us have suffrage whenthe majority of our women shall have reachedthe stage of development where they areequipped with the necessary requirements forthe intelligent exercise of that right. … I wouldlike to have all the women in the world to beever delicate, sweet, lovable, yielding and obe-dient to man.107

In her doctoral dissertation on the role ofwomen in early Philippine cinema, Strait Panejaclaims that the image of the Filipina as a meek,patient and suffering martyr started with Filipino silentmovies, and that Nepomuceno was its chief propo-nent.108 I think this is giving too much credit to themovies, as that image existed in Filipino society longbefore the cinematographic era. However, it seemsNepomuceno recreated and wanted to maintain thisimage. His La Mujer Filipina can be seen as a contri-bution to the public debate on the role of women: heoften showed two different portraits of women in hisfilms in order to contrast the heroine with anotherwoman and thereby make the qualities of the heroinemore conspicuous.109 La Mujer Filipina compared theFilipina of yesteryear (during Spanish occupation)with the woman of today (during U.S. occupation),

Fig. 5. Anewspaper

advertisement forNoli Me Tangere.



where the former was shown in a much better lightthrough attributing bad traits to the latter.110 In adver-tisements for the film, viewers were warned againstbeing too modern. The Filipina was played by theseventeen-year-old debutante, Eva Lyn, who playedthree roles in the film: Laura, who was brought up inthe Spanish tradition, soft-spoken, modest and frag-ile, who became an ideal wife and mother; Laura’sdaughter, who was influenced by the modern waysof the Americans; and Laura’s granddaughter, whorepresented the future woman in the Philippines,filled with negative character traits. A review in ManilaTimes observed: ‘The Filipina is so changed that onewould believe she was a foreigner were it not for thedress she uses’.111 The film was so successful that itwas re-released one year later, in December 1928.The tendency to represent women as domestic fam-ily heads and martyrs marginalised women andplaced them on the periphery of the nation-buildingprocess.112

The suffering heroine of José Rizal’s novels,particularly Maria Clara (another beautiful, meek andsuffering woman) in Noli Me Tangere (1887), was themodel of femininity that Nepomuceno tried to emu-late, the novel being adapted for the screen in 1930.As previously mentioned, Maria Clara became theicon symbolising the Philippines. Being the symbolof a country did not necessarily generate a moreactive role for women in the politics of that country,since women became symbolic of the private spherewhereas the public sphere remained the domain ofmen.113 Other films made by Nepomuceno helpedcement this image of the Filipina. His first film, Dala-gang Bukid, was about a poor woman in love whofaces a dilemma, and this was a recurring theme inhis movies. A review of Mutya ng Pamilihan in Graphicdescribes the plot which ‘vividly portrays the fate ofa poor but faithful Filipino woman with a sublime lovestronger than death’.114 Ang Punyal Na Ginto, wasalso about a poor woman, Dalisay, who was preg-nant with the child of Dante, the son of the wealthyDon Sergio who did not approve of the girl, and didhis utmost to separate the couple. Don Sergio triedto bribe Dalisay, burned her store and had her im-prisoned by accusing her of theft. When Dante finallyreturned to Dalisay, she had lost her mind and diedof heart failure. The theme of a suffering mother alsorecurred in Luha ng Ina (Tears of a Mother, 1930) andOver the Hill, Filipino (or The Sufferings of a Mother,1932).

Nepomuceno is considered to have had a

conservative view concerning the role of women, yethe contributed to the (sexual) liberation and modern-isation of women. According to Strait Paneja, in Dala-gang Bukid, the song, Nabasag ang Banga (Breakingof the clay jar), ‘signified the beginning of a sexualrevolution … [that] broke the chastity belt which hadgirdled the Filipino woman under Spain for almostfour hundred years’.115 In later Philippine movies, itwas common to use the expression, ‘Nabasag angBanga’, when a female character lost her virginity.Nepomuceno refrained from showing sex and vio-lence in his films, but he was the first Filipino toinclude a kiss in his films, in Ang Tatlong Hambog(The Three Humbugs, 1926). The kiss engendereddifferent responses in the audience. Filipino audi-ences generally applauded on-screen kisses, butpublic reaction was rather unfavourable when thekissing couple were Filipinos.116 Nepomuceno’sfourth film, Hoy u Nunca Besame (Now or Never KissMe, 1920), dwelt on the subject of the kiss, as impliedby the title. During the early years of Philippine films,kissing was improper and actresses (and actors?)were not willing to kiss on screen. When ConsuelitaT., the principal actress in Estrellita de Cine (MovieStarlet, 1920), was asked by a reporter from ManilaNueva if she, and other Filipinas, would kiss in themovies, she answered: ‘We? In ... the movies ... no... The Filipino kiss is very expensive!’117 Further-more, his Moro Pirates was advertised as a piracydrama, yet the advertisement also stated ‘A wonder-ful harem and beautiful women’.118 Agustin Sottonotes the importance of film kisses and claims thatthe kissing scene from Ang Tatlong Hambog provedto be such a success and crowd-drawer that Ne-pomuceno included kissing scenes in Hot Kisses,Sampaguita and Mutya ng Pamilihan.119 In his laterfilms the role of women evolved and became moreactive: La Hija de Revolucion was about the role ofwomen during the Filipino struggle for independencearound the turn of the century.

We have seen that the question of independencewas frequently discussed in the press. Nepomucenowas part of a group of Filipino innovators and intel-lectuals who amplified the intensity of the forces forindependence through artistic endeavour. By por-traying Filipino views, lives and traditions, Ne-pomuceno was instrumental in creating an imaginedcommunity which contributed to the nation-buildingprocess. In many ways Nepomuceno was more in-



fluential than other artists since his films were viewedby people from all social strata across the Islands,and because he adapted important Filipino works forthe screen. He created a national consciousness bywriting the history of the nation with his camera, andin terms of contemporary influence, can be com-pared with José Rizal. By spreading Tagalog culture,Nepomuceno made Filipino national culture con-

verge with Tagalog culture. Before the advent ofFilipino-made films, the language of the coloniser(first Spanish, later English) was the principal meansof communication between the various languagecommunities. The Filipino film industry, in essence,a Tagalog industry, contributed greatly to the spreadof Tagalog language and culture and in so doing, theformation of Filipino identity.

1. Zamboanga (1937), Giliw Ko (My Dear, 1939), Tunayna Ina (True Mother, 1939), Pakiusap (Lover’s Plea,1940) and Idang Adarna (Adorna Bird, 1941). SeeClodualdo del Mundo, Native Resistance: PhilippineCinema and Colonialism 1898–1941 (Manila: De LaSalle University Press, 1998), 7. A copy of Zam-boanga from Finland was discovered at the Libraryof Congress in 2003.

2. Giuliana Bruno, Streetwalking on a Ruined Map:Cultural Theory and the City Films of Elvira Notari(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).

3. MarcFerro,CinemaandHistory (Detroit: WayneStateUniversity Press, 1988), 14–20.

4. I gratefully acknowledge the support from the staffat the three libraries, particularly the National Library.

5. Fewer articles were found in Tagalog, since fewernewspapers survive.

6. In 1918, the population of Manila (283,613) wasconsiderably larger than the second biggest city,Cebu (65,300), Rosenstock’s Manila City Directory(1922), ‘The Philippine Census of 1918’, 274–277.There was also a Visayan cinema, based in Cebu,where the first film was produced in 1922 and thefirst talkie in 1938. See Nick Deocampo, Films froma ‘Lost’ Cinema: A Brief History of Cebuano Films(Manila: Nick Deocampo, 2005), for more informa-tion. An area of further research would be to inves-tigate the reception Nepomuceno’s films received innon-Tagalog areas, in particular the reaction of Ilo-cano and Visayan newspapers to the Tagalog influ-ence that was spread through the films ofNepomuceno.

7. Joe Quirino, Don José and the Early Philippine Cin-ema (Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House Inc.,1983), 14. Quirino’s book is the only extensive studyof Nepomuceno. Much of the book is based oninterviews and conversations that the author had withNepomuceno some thirty years before the book waspublished. In the foreword of thebook, Quirinowrites:‘[Nepomuceno] raised entertainment to the level ofPhilippine art. His best films are Philippine artefacts… he was a nationalist first and foremost in his workand … he strove to keep Philippine movies faithful

to Philippine realities.’ (Quirino, Don José and theEarly Philippine Cinema, ix). His book has its merits,although it has several academic flaws: many factsare presented incorrectly and references are totallylacking.

8. José Rizal was a physician, writer and reformist. Withhis novel, Noli Me Tangere, he portrayed contempo-rary Philippine society with all its flaws. ‘Noli MeTangere’ is Latin for ‘Touch me not’. The words aretaken from the Gospel of St. John 20: 17. In thesequel, El Filibusterismo, Rizal described the politicalcollapse of Philippine society. According to BenedictAnderson, Rizal’s imaginary vision, the first of its kindby a Filipino, created a sense of hope and possibilityamong the Filipinos of gaining independence fromSpain. (Benedict Anderson, Under Three Flags: An-archism and the Anti-Colonial Imagination (Londonand New York: Verso, 2005), 165). This led to theexecution of Rizal on 30 December 1896 in Manila,two days before the first public film screening in thePhilippines.

9. Nepomuceno sold his prosperous photography stu-dio, and used the capital to buy equipment, booksand magazines about filmmaking. The companyinitially made subtitles in English and Spanish forFrench and Italian films (‘Who is who in the Philip-pines: A biographical sketch of Jose Nepomuceno,pioneerFilipino film producer’,Graphic (2 September1931): 12 and Quirino, Don José and the Early Phil-ippine Cinema, 16).

10. Nepomuceno covered the Great Kanto EarthquakeinJapan in1923 for Pathé.SeeGraphic (2 September1931): 12.

11. Del Mundo, Native Resistance, 58; Eric S. Giron,‘Nepomuceno’s transition from zarzuela to the talk-ies’, in Diamond Anniversary of Philippine Cinema(Quezon City: Mowelfund Publication, 1994), 17–21;John A. Lent, The Asian Film Industry (Austin: Uni-versity of Texas Press, 1990), 151.

12. This is corroborated by an article in Graphic in 1931which stated that Nepomuceno had made thirty-twofilms. Graphic (2 September 1931): 12.

13. M. San Martin, ‘Making movies in Manila. A review

Notes



of the pioneer efforts to introduce motion pictureproduction in the Philippines’, Graphic (13 October1928): 4–5, 33.

14. Nestor, ‘Nuestras Entrevistas: Malayan movies enaccion’, Manila Nueva (28 February 1920): 5–7: ‘Estaen una oculta, descuidada calleja, donde en cadados casas hay una barbería – estas pequeñas,iguales, numerosísimas barberías de Manila. En sufachada, bajaydespintada, ungrancartelónosponeen guarda: “Malayan Movies” “Se prohibe la en-trada”.’ All translations from Spanish to English inthis essay have been made by Leila Eady-Naraghi.

15. In 1932, by which date other Filipino productioncompanies had been established, Malayan PicturesCorporation still produced more than half of the filmsmade in the Philippines (12 out of 23 productions).Nepomuceno founded several film production com-panies: Malayan Movies (1917), Malayan PicturesCorporation (1931), Nepomuceno Production(1932), Nepomuceno-Harris-Tait Partnership(1933), Parlatone Hispano-Filipino Inc. (1935), X’Oticfilms (1938) and Polychrome Motion Picture Corpo-ration (1946). Nepomuceno continued directing andproducing movies until the end of his life, and diedat the age of 66 on 1 December 1959.

16. The Report of the Woods-Forbes Mission in 1921stated that there were 87 distinct dialects spoken inthe Philippines and 43 different ethnic groups ortribes (Rosenstock’s Manila City Directory (1925),‘Interesting data on the Philippines’). According tothe American Census of the Philippines in 1903,Visayan and Ilocano were spoken by more peoplethan Tagalog.

17. Norman G. Owen, ‘Philippine Society and AmericanColonialism’, in Norman G. Owen (ed.), CompadreColonialism: Studies on the Philippines under Ameri-can rule (Ann Arbor: Michigan Papers on South andSoutheast Asia, No 3, University of Michigan, 1971),1–2. The term, ilustrado (enlightened), also had aphysical dimension, since, being mixed race, ilustra-dos had lighter skin.

18. Cristina Lacónico-Buenaventura, The Theater in Ma-nila 1846–1946 (Manila: De La Salle University Press,1994), 48–53.

19. Bienvenido Lumbera, Revaluation 1997: Essays onPhilippine Literature, Cinema and Popular Culture(Manila: University of Santo Tomas PublishingHouse, 1997), 105–106.

20. It is interesting to note that the zarzuela was trans-formed from a form of royal entertainment in Spainto a socially critical theatre in the Philippines. SeeRustica C. Carpio, Hermogenes Ilagan: Father ofTagalog Zarzuela (Manila: University of Santo TomasPublishing House, 2000), 9, 12.

21. Tagalog plays premiered almost every week, andwhen a Tagalog zarzuela played at the Manila Grand

Opera House, even the lower social levels attended,particularly if the play starred Atang de la Rama, theleading actress in Dalagang Bukid (Lacónico-Buenaventura, The Theater in Manila, 76).

22. ‘“Malayan Movies”: El Cinematógrafo en Filipinas’,Manila Nueva (13 September 1919): 15–16.

23. Lena Strait Paneja, Roles and Images of Woman inthe Early Years of Philippine Cinema 1912–1941,Doctoral Dissertation, College of Mass Communica-tion, University of the Philippines Diliman, 1998, 43.

24. Quirino, Don José and the Early Philippine Cinema,17–19. The production cost of PHP 25,000 allegedlyyielded a gross income of PHP 90,000. The zarzuelaplayed over one thousand times (Carpio, Hermo-genes Ilagan, 11).

25. Manila Nueva (13 September 1919): 15–16: ‘El hogarde Angelia, la simpática heroína, es una pinturaacertadísima, de muchas familias filipinas, aunqueexajerando algo los tonos pesimistas’.

26. Nepomuceno changed the ending of the film. In theplay, Don Silvestre gives the couple his blessing, andall ends well. The film ends with Don Silvestre fainting(Manila Nueva (13 September 1919): 15–16). Onemonth later, a sequel, La Venganza de Don Silvestro,received its premiere (Manila Nueva (12 October1919): 41).

27. Trinidad, ‘“Dalagang Bukid”: Drama and Film’, TheCitizen (9 October 1919): 3, 15. Atang de la Ramawas the only one who received praise: ‘the filmperhaps owes its popularity to the acting of MissHonorata de la Rama. She saves the story from thedepth of failure.’

28. Pablo T. Anido, ‘“The Pearl of the markets”: FilipinoPhotoplay’, Graphic (2 March 1929): 52.

29. Miguel G. Luna, ‘The Silent Drama and the Philip-pines: The Value of the Motion Picture in the Philip-pines’, The Citizen (18 September 1919): 9.

30. Cultura Social (January-December 1930).

31. See, for instance, ‘La Censura Cinematográfica’,Cultura Social (June 1930): 286–287.

32. ‘Censor the stage’, Graphic (21 April 1928): 9.

33. ‘Degeneration among our youths’, The Independent(28 January 1922): 3–4.

34. Another article with a similar concern, ‘Moviesweaken development of mind’, appeared in TheIndependent (13 February 1926): 7.

35. See Nick Deocampo, Cine: Spanish Influences onEarly Cinema in the Philippines (Manila: NationalCommission for Culture and the Arts, 2003), chapter3 and first part of chapter 4 for further discussion ofthe initial interaction of theatre and cinema in thePhilippines, and how cinema gradually supplantedtheatre as an entertainment form.



36. Trinidad, ‘“Ang Kruz Na Pula”: A Triumph and aPromise’, The Citizen (18 December 1919): 5.

37. ‘Teatrerias’, Manila Nueva (8 May 1920): 19: ‘¿Quiéndijo que el teatro español moriría en Filipinas? …Los aficionados al teatro y el público en general, quese encuentra ávido de espectáculos de este género,están de enhorabuena.’

38. Graphic (21 April 1928): 3.

39. ‘For the revival of the native drama’, The Citizen (20June 1919): 20. The word ‘flative’ implies a theatreproduction involving stage flats, back cloths etc. Thearticle continues: ‘However, the native play and thephoto drama should claim equal interest. The formershould serve to mirror our own manners and theidiosyncrasies of our native customs and traditions,and to discourage the tendency to adopt every thingforeign either by ridiculing such an attitude or byportraying the beneficent results of preserving thesimple virtues of our fore-fathers; while the lattershould remain as a means to reflect a contemporarycosmopolitan art that has all the attractions of thevaried picturings of life, of its foibles and its beauty.’

40. Filipino historians and scholars give different de-scriptions on when the demise of theatre began,which is understandable after reading the differentopinions in contemporary newspaper articles. Theopinions range between calling the 1930s the goldenage of thePhilippine zarzuela (Deocampo, Cine, 128)and stating that by the early 1920s, the zarzuela hadalready fallen into decline (Del Mundo, Native Resis-tance, 7 and Ernie A. De Pedro, ‘The first movies inthe Philippines’ in Diamond Anniversary of PhilippineCinema, 12). Others blame the demise of theatre oncinema: ‘Eventually cinema eroded the active follow-ing of teatro español and teatro tagalo.’ (Lacónico-Buenaventura, The Theater in Manila, xxi).

41. ‘National film industry’, The Independent (22 January1927): 4.

42. ‘Philippine Film Industry’, The Independent (19 Feb-ruary 1927): 4.

43. Lumbera, Revaluation 1997, 157.

44. Deocampo, Cine, xviii.

45. Ibid., 289–295.

46. Del Mundo, Native Resistance, 25.

47. Ibid., 8.

48. Rosenstock’s Manila City Directory (1905), ‘Introduc-tion’, 14.

49. Rosenstock’s Manila City Directory (1936–1937),‘Philippine Trade & Economic Condition in 1935’, 1.

50. See M. San Martin, ‘Changing our tune’, Graphic, 25May 1929, 4–5, 43.

51. ‘The Filipino flag’, Manila Times (24 October 1919):3.

52. Manila Times (30 October 1919): 3.

53. ‘Philippine Independence: Arguments against ouraims and their answers’, The Independent (29 May1920): 9.

54. ‘Friends for Ever’, The Independent (8 May 1920): 3.

55. ‘Present day snobism [sic]’, The Independent (30December 1922): 3. Also see ‘Western Traditionsinvading Filipino society’, Graphic 28 January 1928):14 and Rafael Palma, ‘The Revolt of Youth: Fact orFiction?’, Graphic (9 February 1929): 4–5.

56. ‘Saturday night in Manila’, Graphic (25 February1928): 17.

57. Renato Constantino, ‘The Miseducation of the Fili-pino’, in Angel Velasco Shaw and Luis H. Francia(eds), Vestiges of War, The Philippine-American Warand the Aftermath of an Imperial Dream 1899–1999(New York: New York University Press, 2002), 178.

58. ‘The present young generation’, The Independent(16 June 1928): 4.

59. ‘The language question’, The Independent (20 No-vember 1920): 7–8.

60. Anderson, Under Three Flags, 5.

61. ‘Spanish in the public schools’, The Independent (11November 1922): 4. Many editorials in The Inde-pendent dealt with the importance of the Spanishlanguage, see 1 March 1924, 4; 23 October 1926,3–4; 1 September 1928, 4; 29 September 1928, 4;and 23 May 1929, 11.

62. ‘FurtherEvidence’,The PhilippinesHerald (15August1920): 4.

63. ‘Spanish prevails’, The Independent (4 June 1927):4.

64. Rosenstock’s Manila City Directory (1911), ‘Manila’,i.

65. ‘The agony of the Spanish swan’, The Independent(23 October 1926): 3–4.

66. Only one novel was published in a vernacular lan-guage during the Spanish colonial period; José Rizalwrote his novels in Spanish. See Lumbera, Revalu-ation 1997, 24.

67. ‘Vernacular publications’, The Independent (13 No-vember 1926): 4.

68. Alejandro G. Abadilla, ‘The Philippines LanguageProblem’, Graphic (2 February 1929): 48.

69. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflec-tions on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (rev.edn) (New York: Verso, 2006), chapter 3.

70. According to the Report of the Woods-Forbes mis-sion in 1921, the literacy rate in the Philippines wasaround 37 per cent (Rosenstock’s Manila City Direc-tory (1925), ‘Interesting data on the Philippines’).

71. On 7 November 1937 Quezon stated: ‘A national soul



cannot exist where there is not a common language.We shall never have any genuine national pride untilwe have a language of our own. We shall alwayshave the sign of inferiority.’ (Quezon quoted in Gre-gorio F. Zaide, Documentary Source of PhilippineHistory, vol. 11 (Metro Manila: National Book StoreInc., 1990), 418–420.

72. Quirino, Don José and the Early Philippine Cinema,44.

73. Ella Shohat and Robert Stam, Unthinking Eurocen-trism (New York and London: Routledge, 1994), 100.

74. Sarah Radcliffe and Sallie Westwood, Remaking theNation: Place, Identity and Politics in Latin America(London and New York: Routledge, 1996), 11.

75. ‘At the Tivoli’, Manila Bulletin (18 October 1920): 8and ‘At the Tivoli’, Manila Bulletin (22 October 1928):11.

76. Graphic (2 September 1931): 12.

77. The Filipino public had a strong preference for artthat came from abroad. See The Independent (11December 1920): 8; (30 April 1921): 8; (23 July 1927):4; and (16 November 1929): 18.

78. Milan Kundera, cited in Velasco Shaw and Francia(eds), Vestiges of War, ix.

79. Nepomuceno shot newsreels, such as the funeral ofthe first wife of Sergio Osmeña, Speaker of the Houseof Representatives (later replacing Quezon as thePresident), in 1917, and reactions in Manila to Woo-drow Wilson’s victory in the U.S. presidential elec-tions in 1920. Malayan Movies was also contractedby the government in 1921 to make short documen-taries of different industries of the country, such asthe production of tobacco, hemp, coconut and tex-tiles (CCP Encyclopedia of Philippine Art (gen. ed.Cultural Center of the Philippines), vol. 8, ‘PhilippineFilm’ (ed. Nicanor G. Tiongson) (Manila: CulturalCenter of the Philippines, 1994), 30).

80. Shohat and Stam, Unthinking Eurocentrism,102–103.

81. Quirino, Don José and the Early Philippine Cinema,8. The prestigious Lyric theatre did not exhibit any ofNepomuceno’s films as they only showed films fromthe United States. In 1931, however, they screenedhis Moro Pirates (Graphic (2 September 1931): 12).

82. The Citizen (18 September 1919): 9.

83. Ibid.

84. Deocampo, Cine, 21.

85. Graphic (2 September 1931): 12.

86. Graphic (2 March 1929): 52. The film is a love storyconcerning the barriers of social class.

87. Strait Paneja, Roles and Images of Woman, 70.

88. Benguet is a region located in the mid-western partof the island of Luzon.

89. Luning B. Ira and Isagani R. Medina, Streets of Manila(Quezon City: GCF Books, 1977), 77–80. The Naza-rene was made in Mexico by a Christian Aztec andcame to the Philippines during the seventeenth cen-tury. It was believed to have healing powers, andanother deeply-rooted belief was that one’s com-merce would flourish as long as one’s devotion tothe Nazarene remained constant. In this light, themaking of the film can be seen as an act of devotion,thereby ensuring the blessing of one’s commerce.

90. In an advertisement for this film, the film title waswritten in a cross (advertisement reproduced in Quir-ino, Don José and the Early Philippine Cinema, n.p.).

91. Anthony Smith, ‘Images of the nation – Cinema, artand national identity’, in Mette Hjort and Scott MacK-enzie (eds), Cinema and Nation (London and NewYork: Routledge, 2000), 45–46.

92. Luis Rivera, ‘The Political and Moral Currents in thePhilippines’, The Philippine Review (November1920): 757.

93. Smith, ‘Images of the nation’, 48.

94. Graphic (20 October 1928): 43

95. Charles Musser, Long liveTitayMolina,EdwardMeyerGross and Filipino Film Culture: or, A reconsiderationof early cinema in the Philippines (Unpublished pa-per, 2006), 9.

96. See Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (Har-mondsworth: Penguin Books, 1967), 178–180.

97. Sampaguita is the national flower of the Philippines.Nipa hut (bahay kubo) was the indigenous Filipinohut that was very common in rural areas. A peanutvendor was a typical working-class occupation.Tianak and manananggal are local monsters in Fili-pino folklore.

98. When the Oriental Film Company was establishedin 1929, it published an open letter: ‘As its nameindicates, this company will dedicate, through localcharacters and plots, to represent the life, customs,behavior and idiosyncrasy of the Philippine societyin its present and its past, as it is done in othercountries. … We have seen the increasingly appre-ciated work of the Nepomuceno brothers. Thesegentlemen have, thanks to their perseverance andpassion, been able to produce films that can com-pete with the ones produced in Japan and China.But this is just regarding their photographic aspect.Concerning the plot, the story and the developmentof the films, there is still much to improve.’ (‘Comosu nombre indica, esta compañía se dedicará decarácter y argumento locales, que representen lavida, costumbres, manera de ser e idiosincrasia dela sociedad filipina en el presente y en el pasado,exáctamente igual que lo que se hace en otrospaíses. … Ya hemos visto los trabajos cada vez másapreciables de los hermanos Nepomuceno. Estos



señores, gracias a su perseverancia y afición, hanconseguido producir cintas que podrían competirventajosamente con las que se producen e Japón yChina. Pero esta es en cuanto se refiere solamentea la parta fotográfica. Con respecto al argumento,la trama y el desarrollo de las obras filmadas haymucho que necesita mejorarse aun.’), The Inde-pendent (9 March 1929): 20.

99. ‘Nationalization of Art’, The Citizen (27 August 1920):2.

100. ‘The kundiman is the expression of the Filipino soul,the outpourings of its unrealized ideas and aspira-tions.’, in Virigina A. Pradas, ‘Kundiman giving jazzthe air’, Graphic (29 October 1927): 3. See also thearticle ‘Jazz vs Kundiman’, Sampaguita (4 December1927): 43. In an interview with Quirino, Nepomucenostated: ‘It is the musical that immortalises our beau-tiful folk songs. … There is nothing like a gay musicalto lift the people’s morale when times are hard.’(Quirino, Don José and the Early Philippine Cinema,61).

101. Resil B.Mojares, Origins and Rise of the Filipino Novel(Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press,1998), 243–247.

102. ‘Nueva Ocupación para Escritores Locales’, Philip-pines Free Press (4 January 1930): 58.

103. Manila Bulletin (18 October 1928): 8.

104. Mojares, Origins and Rise of the Filipino Novel,300–301. Dr Kuba was even written for JoséNepomuceno, who needed a good screenplay.

105. Quirino, Don José and the Early Philippine Cinema,109. The film underwent fifteen cuts, even thoughNepomuceno asked the advice of many people,including priests, during the making of the film.

106. Ildefonsa C. Osias, ‘The changing status of theFilipino woman’, Graphic (17 December 1927):10–11. Other articles that debated this issue inGraphic included ‘Is Woman Man’s Inferior?’ (7 Janu-ary 1928: 9), ‘Is the modern Filipino girl as bad as allthat?’ (28 January 1928: 3) and ‘Can women succeedin business?’ (26 May 1928: 6).

107. Amparo M. Neri, ‘Women suffrage synonym of di-vorce and flapperism’, Graphic (31 December 1927):12.


109. In an interview with Quirino, Nepomuceno stated: ‘Inthe realm of Philippine movies, the “other woman”is an ubiquitous and indispensable character withoutwhom the leading lady, for want of feminine compe-tition, would appear stale and unworthy of the heroicattentions of the handsome and brave hero.’ (Quir-ino, Don José and the Early Philippine Cinema, 91).

110. Strait Paneja, Roles and Images of Woman, 59–60.

111. Manila Times (12 October 1927). An article in Graphicalso emphasised Eva Lyn’s dress: ‘And was she nota wow in that Filipino dress.’ (‘She named the Met-ropolitan’, Graphic (22 September 1928): 2).

112. Radcliffe and Westwood, Remaking the Nation,158–159.

113. Ibid., 140–142. Radcliffe and Westwood write aboutthe process through which women became nationalicons in Latin American countries, a process whichwas also applicable to the Philippines.

114. The leitmotiv of Dalagang Bukid.


116. Quirino, Don José and the Early Philippine Cinema,34. The kiss in Ang Tatlong Hambug took placeagainst the backdrop of a church in ruins. TheAugustinian friars, to whom the church belonged,did not approve and forbade further use of the churchand its grounds for film production.

117. Manila Nueva (28 February 1920): 5–7: ‘-¿Nosotras?En… película… no… ¡El beso filipino cuesta muycaro!’

118. Advertisement reproduced in Quirino, Don José andthe Early Philippine Cinema, n.p.

119. Agustin Sotto, ‘A brief history of Philippine cinema’,in David Hanan (ed.), Film in South East Asia: Viewsfrom the Region (Hanoi: SEAPAVAA, 2001), 37.

Abstract: José Nepomuceno and the creation of a Filipino national

consciousness,

by Nadi Tofighian

The essay examines the contribution made by José Nepomuceno to the Philippine quest for independenceand the raising of national consciousness. By portraying Filipino views, lives and traditions, Nepomucenowas instrumental in creating an imagined community in a colonial society. He created a nationalconsciousness by writing the history of the national with his camera; films that were viewed by people fromall social strata across the Islands. The films of Nepomuceno spread Tagalog language and culture, andgradually made Filipino national culture converge with Tagalog culture.



José Nepomuceno and the creation of a Filipino national consciousness

Documents

Transcript of José Nepomuceno and the creation of a Filipino national consciousness