Clinton A.

Balbontin
Johanna Chan
Nationalism in the Arts, 1898-1915:
The Case of Sarswelas and Cinema
One can easily remark that it was the Americans who introduced film and cinema in the
Philippine islands. However, motion pictures first appeared in the islands during the last years of
Spanish colonial era.
1
In 1896, Salon de Pertierra started as a phonograph parlour in the famous
Escolta Street in Manila. Using a 60 mm Gaumont chronophotograph projector and four titles
imported from France, Pertierra, the Spanish owner, had line-up of films he called Espectaculo
Cientifico de Pertierra (Pertierras Scientific Spectacle). For Bryan Yeatter
2
, this line-up were
necessarily brief; little more than a curiosity, and certainly not anything capable of displacing the
popular live entertainment of the day, the vod-a-vil shows and, most especially, the sarswelas. It
must be noted that in the early years of films in the islands, it has to compete with the well-loved live
plays and for the remaining Spanish period it was the latter that dominated. Their political applications
later had also been paralleled in such a way that it is a tool by Americans and Filipinos respectively.
In its further development, the U.S. presence brought more documentary filmmakers. Burton
Holmes, a producer of weekly travelogues for Paramount, shot Battle of Baliwag in 1899.
3
Raymond
Ackerman of American Biography and Mutoscope shot Filipino Cockfight and Battle of Mount Arayat.
Kimwood Peters filmed Banawe Rice Terraces.
4
Herbert Wyndom visited the island in the early 1900s
to film Manila Fire Department. At the same time, film exhibition was attracting businessmen and was
catching on with the entrepreneurs. Various movie houses were opening. In 1900, Cine Walgraph
opened at Number 60 Calle Santa Rosa in Intramuros. In 1902, Spaniard Samuel Rebarber opened
the Gran Cinematografo Parisien at Number 80 Calle Crespo in Quiapo. In 1903, the first movie
house to be owned by a Filipino was established by Jose Jimenez at Azcarraga Street. The movie
house was named Cinematografo Rizal. The momentum of the film industry started here. Though
initially, the films were shown in between vod-a-vil acts. So, the focus were on the plays rather on the
film.
However, in 1912, a trio of Americans set out to film the first feature-length motion picture in
the Philippines. Harry Brown produced La Vida de Jose Rizal (The Life of Jose Rizal). The screenplay
was written by Dr. Edward Meyer Gross. He adapted his own stage play of the life of the martyr for
the play. Later, Brown and Gorss had started their own production company called Rizalina Film
Company.
5
This became the peak of the development of film in the country. Technologies are
imported in the country. And investments are coming from the Americans. In fact, when the news of
the production of Browns work spread in Manila, another American who was ready to compete was
making his own version of nationalistic film. Albert Yeasley produced a short film entitled El

1
Bryan L. Yeatters, Cinema of the Philippines: A History and Filmography 1897-2005 (North Carolina:
McFarland & Co., Inc., 2007), 5-6.
2
Yeatters, Cinema of the Philippines, 6.
3
Yeatters, Cinema of the Philippines, 7.
4
Bautista, Arsenio. History of Philippine Cinema.
(http://www.ncca.gov.ph/culture&arts/cularts/arts/cinema/cinema-history1.htm)
5
Yeatters, Cinema of the Philippines. 9.
Fusilamineto de Dr. Jose Rizal (The Shooting of Dr. Jose Rizal).
6
The film depicted Rizal execution.
Even with the competition, both films were said to be successful in terms of income. With the tools
and assets to invest on films, Americans made profit in the film industry here in the Philippines
through exploiting our history. American-produced and directed movies have versions of Rizal's Noli
me Tangere which evoked the emotions of the Filipinos leading them to believe that Americans
favoured our nationalistic tendencies. However, as various narrative will show, they are, in fact,
exploiting our nationalism in order to gain profit. Nonetheless, Filipino have still the live plays as a tool
to play against the Americans.
On the one hand, from mid-1902 to mid-1904, the so-called seditious plays were significant in
the overall confrontation between the Filipino oppositionists and the American colonial government.
7

Initially publicly performed throughout Manila and the nearby provinces, the following plays caused
the greatest uproar and concern within the American community and then received the severest
reaction by banning and censorship from the colonial government: Ang Tanikalang Guinto and Isang
Puno ng Kaaway by Juan Abad; Kahapon, Ngayon at Bukas by Aurelio Tolentino; Hindi Aco Patay by
Juan Matapang Cruz; Pulong Pinaglahuan by Mariano Martinez; Dahas ng Pilak by Maximo de los
Reyes; Malaya by Tomas Remigio; and Walang Sugat by Severino Reyes. The use of allegory,
literary and nationalist symbols, and an array of subtle techniques of staging and improvisations in
these plays served as a medium for continued resistance and opposition to the American regime. Like
the Tagalog press of Manila, it ridiculed americanistas and disseminated nationalist ideals and
ideology.
8
However, these writers are not ilustrados who were known as the oppositionists during that
time. Rather, these have ilustrado funders and networks that acknowledges their literary skills. It is
strategic to frequently maintain relationships with wealthy patrons as it becomes a communicating tool
for the politicians and income generation for the writer. The writers skills and works can function as
nationalist medium in the language of the people. Thus, making these plays a tool by Filipinos and for
Filipinos.
On the other hand, the success of American-produced films in the country does not entail
popularity. Chinese mestizos were not happy with the portrayal of the Spanish in La Vida Jose Rizal
and El Fusilamiento de Dr. Jose Rizal. For Bryan Yeatters, these loyalty by the Chinese mestizos
were difficult to grasp historically.
9
Nonetheless, it can be seen in politics of narrative. The negative
imagery provided by the Americans can be seen as hypocrisy by the Chinese mestizos. And their
loyalty can be interpreted as the lack of definition of Filipino identity during that time. Thus, equipped
with finances, a group of mestizos in 1912 sought to improve the image of the Spaniards with their
own film.
10
The group was headed by Carlos Palanca. And their first production was La Conquista de
Filipinas (The Conquest of the Philippines). It was apparently a romanticized version of Miguel Lopez
de Legapis journey of colonizing the islands. However, Brown and Gross answered this film with
another venture of telling the life of Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora. This is

6
Yeatters, Cinema of the Philippines, 10.
7
Micahel Cullinane, Ilustrado Politics: Filipino Elite Responses to American Rule, 1898-1908 (Quezon
City: AdMU Press, 2003), 115.
8
Cullinane, Ilustrado Politics, 115-118.
9
Yeatters, Cinema of the Philippines, 10.
10
Yeatters, Cinema of the Philippines, 10.
interesting since the competition of film industry is settling with the very nationalistic issues in history
such as the martyrdom of the three priests. Nonetheless, it became difficult for the Chinese mestizos
to answer back to this production especially with the intervention of the American colonial
government. La Conquista de Filipinas execution sequence was ordered removed by the censors. In
the earliest years of film exhibition in the Philippines, the duty of film review and censorship fell on
local civil and military authorities. For instance, General Arthur McArthur acted as chief censor from
1899-1900. But by 1912, a board of censorship was established to institutionalize the control to the
growing motion picture industry. Because of this, only American-produced films continued to thrive. By
1913, Brown made his own production of the Philippine conquest through the film La Conquista de
Filipinas de Legazpi (The Conquest of the Philippines by Legazpi).
11
This film seems to be a
retaliation compared to the Chinese mestizo version by portraying Spanish as violent. It was done so
because of the threat of censorship from the Americans if otherwise was done.
12
Since then, Filipino
or Chinese mestizo produced films halted production for the American colonial period. It seem that
non-American film narratives are censored in the islands.
In conclusion, both form of arts are subjugated with American censorship. Also, both are
using the language of the people nationalism and popular history. However, the difference lies on
the handling of the productions. The live plays during the early years of American government is an
art by and for the Filipinos. And for the case of the films, since with the favours of the American
censorship board, American-produced films dominated the market. Nonetheless, Mario A. Hernando
seems to be correct on commenting that even with nationalist tone, these films were primarily
produced to cash in on nationalist sentiments that had been growing.
13
With the familiarity on the
Philippine leisure arts market, American businessmen would have been using this growing sense of
nationalism in order to gain profit in the islands.




11
Yeatters, Cinema of the Philippines, 13.
12
Yeatters, Cinema of the Philippines, 13.
13
Yeatters, Cinema of the Philippines, 13.
Bibliography

Bautista, Arsenio. n.d. "History of Philippine Cinema." National Commission of the Culture and the
Arts. http://www.ncca.gov.ph/culture&arts/cularts/arts/cinema/cinema-history1.htm.
Cullinane, Michael. 2003. Ilustrado Politics: Filipino Elite Responses to American Rule, 1898-1908.
Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Yeatter, Bryan L. 2007. Cinema of the Philippines: A History and Filmography 1897-2005. North
Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.