I have watched the film “Ganito Kami Noon, Paano Kayo Ngayon” twice. And for the second time I’ve enjoyed watching it. The film is ‘so Filipino’, if I am to describe it. I may not be born during that period to relate to it, but I’m very much aware of our colonial history that I can picture how Filipinos lived their lives then.

The story is all about the fate of Nicolas Ocampo (Christopher de Leon), how he was unwittingly sent to find a friar’s son at the height of the Philippine Revolution against the Spanish colonization. During his journey, he was able to encounter people who influenced his way of thinking and his way of living. He came across with Filipino revolutionaries, Spanish friars and guardia civil, circus folks including Diding (Gloria Diaz) whom he fell in love with eventually, and Filipino elites who identify themselves as the real Filipinos. Kulas’ fate envelopes social issues that occurred (and perhaps continue to exist today) during the Spanish regime. It accentuates the struggle of the Filipinos for independence from the Spanish invaders and also for the elusive identity as a Filipino. The character of Kulas stands as an unseen observer of the social conflicts between the Spanish elite and the Filipino revolutionaries. He seems to have been passive to the changes that came his way. He became rich and was aware of the foreign domination, yet he did nothing. He knew all along who the oppressors were and who were the oppressed, yet he did nothing. Kulas is caught between the lure of wealth and the power of principle. In the end, Kulas realizes that the latter shall prevail over the former and that the identity of the Filipinos must be recognized.

This film, directed by Eddie Romero in the 1970s, is said to be one of the most critically acclaimed in the film history. The Manunuring Pelikulang Pilipino recognized it as one of the “The Best Films of 1970s”. It also won several awards including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Actor (Christopher de Leon).

No matter how laudable this motion picture seem to be, it appears to be totally obliterated in the minds of the Filipinos, then and now. I was just wondering, why do organizations in U.P. never fail to show Ora Pronobis or Ganito Kami Noon almost every year? Very rare are these films that delve into the social and historical issues, which the public fails to be aware of. Nonetheless, this film did not appeal to the populace as it did to any ‘Judy Ann’ movie or even Bong Revilla flicks. Why cannot the viewing public seem to appreciate films that tackle social problems and might as well provide solutions?

Films that discuss social issues do not appeal to the populace for the following reasons. One is the lack of support coming from the government. Because films about social maladies attack the government, they were being censored or regulated. Of course, the government would not want to show the public its faults and corruption through these films. Moreover, the government lack or does not even encourage the public in watching these films. Second, since ‘social realism’ movies are far more serious than love stories or slapstick flicks, the public or the masses prefer to appreciate the latter. The masses reason out that with poverty prevalent in the country, they prefer to watch films that intend to lighten up their situation or problems instead of adding up to their distress. Third, the movie trend is also a factor. Today, bold and teen movies are in, drama ones are out. Because of the prevailing trend, moviemakers will practically adhere to it in order to earn a profit. As they say, if that’s what the public wants, that’s what the public will get. Which bring us to the fourth factor, since the movie industry gives what the public wants and not what the public ‘needs’, lack of critical thinking occurs. Because the public is not aware of the problems in the society, providing solutions for these problems is difficult to achieve.

Going back to the movie, it did very well in showing us a picture of the Philippines centuries ago. It was well demonstrated how the Spanish friars abused their powers and how Filipinos reacted to it.

For me, the character of Kulas signifies the condition of the Filipinos when colonizers first set foot on the archipelago. Like Kulas, who was not educated, Filipinos were ignorant of the new culture brought by the Spanish invaders. They were forced to embrace a way of living and new set of beliefs strange to their own. They were branded as indios, who were uneducated and uncivilized. Like Kulas who was passive to the Spanish friar, Filipinos became submissive to their new ruler, still confused of their own condition, of their own identity. Like Kulas who found realization in the end, Filipinos finally found courage to fight for their own sovereignty and for their own identity.

Few centuries have passed, and we, the present generation, are enjoying the freedom and independence that our ancestors have fought for. But are we valuing our independence and identity the way our forefathers did? With the recent issue on US intervention in the country through joint military exercises and military arrangements, I guess the answer is no. Once again, we are like Kulas, eager and submissive to our former colonial masters, the Americans.

Maybe that’s the reason these films appear almost every year. It always reminds us that the independence and our national identity our forefathers have fought for centuries ago should not be wiped out from our memory and from our hearts.