Module 1 - P. Standefer - “Nailed” and “Bontoc Eulogy”

“Nailed”
In “Nailed”, the viewer is presented with several competing themes. They are the theme of Lucy, the Filipina who has herself crucified every year, and what she represents then more subtle themes of poverty, religion, and politics. There also seems to be a focus on women and some sort of intellectual expression, although the meaning of the intellectual expression was lost on the author of this essay. The film is comprised of the filmmaker’s “journey” to learn about Lucy which is interspersed with footage of religious ceremonies, festivals, and short scenes of actors doing and saying symbolic things (intellectual expression).
The film does two things with Lucy’s crucifixion: presents the viewer with ethnographic footage of an interesting religious practice and uses it to maintain viewer attention to the film. Both uses of the crucifixion bring up the question of ethics in filmmaking. First, is the presentation of Lucy’s crucifixion without explanation useful to the point that it outweighs the possible misinterpretation and exoticization of Lucy, Filipino Catholics, or Filipinos in general? The film is not presented as a coherent or continuous ethnography because of the insertion of scenes unrelated to the crucifixion which detracts from the overall understanding of this particular religious ceremony. There are also few subtitles throughout the film which makes understanding relevant dialogue in the film impossible for non-Tagalog speakers. Without explanation, subtitles, or relevant cultural experience, the viewer will likely not have a “Filipino” understanding of the event, but rather framed in their own perspective.
Secondly, the viewer should question the use of Lucy as an attention grabbing device. Throughout the film, the author wondered whether the film was actually about Lucy and whether the crucifixion would be shown or if the filmmaker would cut the film short to avoid showing such a graphic scene. It was not clear whether scenes not related to Lucy were added to complement her story or whether Lucy was added to complement the filmmaker’s point. Misrepresenting Lucy for the sake of the filmmaker’s politics or intellectual expression is both unethical and unnecessary. The Filipino political and intellectual realms provide enough shock value that the filmmaker did not need to single out a solitary person or sacred ceremonies/festivals to drive the film.

“Bontoc Eulogy”
In “Bontoc Eulogy”, the filmmaker tells the story of one of his grandfathers, Markod, a Bontoc tribesman who went to the U.S. to be part of an exhibit in the World’s fair. The main theme seems to be questioning “Modernity” or “Civilization” by contrasting the supposed thoughts of Markod and images of the tribal people with images and narrative of the U.S. The filmmaker employs his children in a few scenes which cheapened the overall effect of the film by appearing to try too hard to have an artsy, intellectual feel.
The film uses historical footage from the early 1900’s although it is not apparent if it is entirely real footage or real footage mixed with film from fictional movies set during the same time period. This is problematic not because it detracts from the effectiveness of the film but rather because it leaves the viewer not knowing whether the basic information in the film can be trusted or if footage is used just to help make the filmmaker’s point. Also, from the format of the film, the footage seems to be from one source but because the film maker was obviously not alive to shoot the footage himself, the viewer has to ask from how many films is the footage taken.
The ethical question raised in “Bontoc Eulogy” is how the historical treatment of the Bontocs specifically and Igorots or Filipinos generally by the scientific community, which is in this case Anthropologists, relates to ethical academic research and presentation. In the film, Markod was told by a pair of Anthropologists that he could participate in the World’s Fair and return home by the time that his wife gave birth to their first child. Markod departed for America and ended up being kept in a small section of the World’s Fair guarded by Filipinos long after his wife would have given birth. The Anthropologists, knowingly or unknowingly, made false claims to Markod to entice him into going. They may have had the intention of allowing Markod to leave, but once Markod arrived in America, the administration of his section moved into the hands of more market- or performance-oriented people. The history of Anthropologists’ cooperation with colonial institutions, however, does not lend itself to absolving the pair of Anthropologists that met with Markod of their guilt.
The second point concerns the exhibition of Markod and other Igorot peoples as fair attractions. This exhibition could be likened to a museum exhibit, except the fact remains that Markod is not an artifact and does have a family that he missed. Furthermore, in the context of America at the start of the 1900’s, does the supposed learning that was taking place justify keeping a human being essentially caged up in a section of a fair? For the average American that walked up and observed Markod for a few minutes, probably commented on how interesting primitive man was, and walked on to the Negrito section to repeat the cycle, the education hardly justified a inanimate tool or artifact, much less a person with emotions.