Imelda -Christine4Heysoo

In the movie ‘Imelda’, I saw a great transition over the period when Ferdinand Marcos came to be the president. I saw this period as the beginning era that brought light to women, culture, and arts. This was seen through the image that Imelda created for herself. She had that sense of who she is and she carried herself with dignity. From the way she dressed and the shoes she wore. She had a lot of the things that the people did not have. However, women especially who were in the provinces look up to her as their role model while others might have envied her. She was seen a heroine by people who know her. She has the beauty and the strength like a heroine. Imelda became a pillar to her husband’s campaign and presidency. The image that was created in the movie and a lot of it portrays what role women have in society. ‘Imelda’ was not only depicted as a woman but also her role as a wife, mother, friend, partner, neighbor, politician, and even as an enemy. Imelda was this tall woman who is beautiful, wealthy, intellectual, talented, down to earth, kind, caring, loyal, virtuous, ostentatious, and most importantly she love and is love by her people. She created a new definition and new outlook of ‘beauty’, which exist within in every human being.

I cannot believe that they got married after 7 days when they met. It seemed very hasty to be entangled with a person you hardly knew. I am not sure if this is always the case for people who are with high status whether in politics or entertainment. However, this could also be the case for the lower class if there is the necessity to marry without a long courtship. Usually from my observation, lower class takes time to get to know the person, then next the seeking for parental consent on both sides. Situations always change though due to conditions such as wealth, health, connections, needs, or attractions between the parties.

I did not find anything wrong about the martial law and although of course it dramatically changed the lifestyle of the people but life still goes on. It needed to be established because everything was breaking lost and President Marcos I say thought deeply about the ‘common good’ of the people. I believe that it was the only way to restore order and control to the government. President Marcos may have taken the last step to keep the peace and that was to exile and torture those who went against him. Maybe he stepped over his boundaries but what else could a president do to restore his reputation and the people. It was unethical for President Marcos to not give a fair trial for those detainees. People knew the power that the president had and still they went against his way. I heard that it was for the best of the country that martial law was installed. People were disciplined and restriction was imposed on them. A lot of people however did not like the martial law. This answer then the question on the importance of considering common good in establishing principles that will govern the society or the country. I think that yes there are things that we do not like however these things are good for us and the martial law was one of them. Martial law was needed to suppress the surge of rebels who are causing violence and disruptions. Ethical actors should act in accord with common good so that you do not show partiality within different groups. Though common good seemed to be a challenge, I believe that it can be achieved if only people are willing to sacrifice something for the betterment of the whole. When the ethical actors distribute equal privileges and rights to the people, respect is reciprocated and you avoid problems and arguments between the citizens.

In the film, actors acted in accord with other variable due to pressure. In one case, Imelda acted on pressure she got from the people in that she was blinded with the impression that she represented those people who are poor, farmers, and etc. Therefore, she had to present herself with dignity and courage. She thought and esteemed very high of her people even though they are in a small country. She showed the world during her travels that Philippines existed in the maps and that Filipinos are beautiful and hard working people and that the Filipino has the same right to be known in World just like any other countries. In addition to this, when President Marcos was elected, in his speech, he said that the government broken and that his goal is to make the country great. His goal was to get rid of corruption in the government, smuggling, reduced criminals, and etc. to construct a strong infrastructure and strong military. This is where Imelda came in to build museums, art centers, bridges, and etc. that would help elevate and revitalize the economy and preserve the culture of the people. Another variable would be change. Governmental officials who opposed to policies of President Marcos acted on change. These officials conceived that Marcos cabinet was corrupted and they basically threatened to remove power from the President.

It is important to revisit the question of violence and what triggers it so that you can better prepare to provide protection and avoid hurting many. Violence could rise from arguments, political repression, mismanagement of power, personal gain, deception, corruption, misunderstanding, and unbalance power. I think that these all resulted due to the lost of direction in establishing the ‘common good’ and balance. I guess it is very important to impose strict consequences for violence and start to promote nonviolence. A country needs to be defended from violence, make it a duty, and not take it so lightly or else leniencies on policies toward aggressions will only encouragement violence. The martial law was somewhat effective in some way.

I do not understand why they had President Marcos’ tomb on a freezer. It seemed to be that it has two purposes and those are to remember a hero who had taken a different route to what seemed right to him in order to make his country great or to show off the man who deceived and corrupted his people.