The film “Imelda,” gave me a better understanding of the history behind the life of the Marcos family, in a political perspective, told through the eyes of former first lady, Imelda Marcos. Instead of the film portraying a biographical documentary about Imelda’s life as I thought it would, it was more of a learning experience because I gained a lot from watching the film. She brought up a lot of controversial issues, which led me to understand why there are people who are anti-Marcos. Although President Marcos made some changes to the Philippines during the beginning portion of his reign, he also made a lot of mistakes and wrong choices, as Imelda tries to reason with the camera her reasons to why Marcos did the things he did and why things turned out the way they did.
The part that caught my attention throughout the film is her idea of everything being “beautiful.” From the object that almost killed her, she explained that she would rather be killed not with an “ugly plain bolo” but something with a “ribbon” tied to it. I thought that statement in itself was ridiculous and questionable. I mean, for many of the things she had explained throughout the film, could most of it be just full of crap? For myself, I wasn’t born during the time that Marcos had ruled the Philippines, and my family are pro-Marcos, so it’s difficult to pinpoint the things that are true and false. A part of the film that I found was disturbing other than the “beauty concept” Imelda believed, is when she mentioned that she considered herself a “representative of the poor.” I found that statement to be hypocritical of all the statements she had said throughout the film. During this portion, as she had mentioned that to the camera, it showed the “uglier” parts of the Philippines. Parts that seemed to be hidden underneath the lies that Imelda had covered them with. She made people think, by the way she presented herself, the way she dressed, that the entirety of the Philippines was “beautiful” in terms of nothing looking like slums, when in fact that is the truth. For example, that idea that Hawaii is this kind of paradise, as portrayed in movies, books, magazines, etc. when the truth of the matter is, homelessness is a major problem. The same with the way Imelda is trying to portray the Philippines, building a theatre center; a theatre center that was rushed to be built and killed many people in the process. This kind of selfishness that Imelda portrayed and how she reasoned again that these people were actually found was another lie that she tried to get herself out of. All these things made me realize what kind of person Imelda had become, because of the title as “first lady.” I suppose that there is a price to pay when becoming rich, selfish, and obsessed with beauty.
Taking a look the idea of common good, in module two, in relevance to Imelda Marcos, I think she tried to be ethical in the answers she had given on-camera because of all the problems that had persisted during the time that President Marcos came into power. The things that happened during martial law up until the people revolution, are the problems in the history of the Philippines that portray the Marcos family in that way. I think Imelda, with the answers she had given seemed like crap because she didn’t want to be caught telling people that yeah, her husband did kill Ninoy Aquino or she used government money to buy her shoe and terno collection. Of course, both the President and Imelda were careful with the things they had said on-camera, as not to be caught saying the wrong things. I also think that Imelda at the time of this film, was already experiencing a lot of problems with Marcos being gone and taking things into her own hands. I guess she had gone beyond her thoughts and started making up things just to act in accord with common good.
Apart from the film itself, I personally enjoyed the film. It was entertaining, controversial, exciting, humorous, ridiculous and disturbing at some points, and overall a great learning experience. It’s like we get to sit down with Imelda herself, and listen to what she has to say about her husband, her life as the first lady, and the impact she has made on the Philippines. As a person, she is truly beautiful and I guess that when you’re born “beautiful” as she was, obviously everything has to and needs to be beautiful—which explains her idea of life and world as being beautiful. She considered herself to not only be a representative of the poor but the mother of the Philippines, which I thought was quite interesting. Religiously, it was as if she was comparing herself to “mother Mary,” that she could heal the Philippines, in the sense that the Philippines could be beautiful, in terms of economy, expansion, etc. All in all, I don’t blame her for what she had become, because the government, no matter what country it is, will somehow be corrupt anyway. It just takes good leaders to make a difference and make some changes for the betterment of the country instead of making changes that will affect the country in the end. I also found that power and wealth, are two things that become evil combinations, if it is not used properly, in terms of government/leadership positions. If these two things are abused it will definitely cause problems, as seen with President & Imelda Marcos. It is a difficult task when faced with both power and wealth, but the way the person handles them is what will make them a great or terrible leader.
R.M. Aurellano
No comments:
Post a Comment