Courtesies and Criticisms

“…That’s important in our craft. We must be faced with the naysayers [to] make sure that we are not… just exploiting these real people for stories that we can use for our art.”

That was me last September 3 when I had the honour of speaking to the Filipino community in Vienna via Zoom during their celebration of Kultur Bayanihan Ōsterreich, or KUBŌ23. It is an annual event that showcases the heritage and experiences of the Filipino diaspora in Austria through dialogue and various art forms.

On the last day of the festival, they screened “Bangketa” starring Amy Austria and Jane Oineza – an MMK episode I directed in 2016. It is a dramatisation of the life of Naning, a homeless student who lived in the streets of Quiapo all her life with her adoptive mother and sister. At one point in the story, a photographer took an interest in Naning and got her family’s permission to document Naning’s journey to graduation from high school.

Cindy Kurleto, a former actress herself who is now back living in her hometown in Europe, moderated the ensuing discussion and asked an unexpected and controversial question. She asked for my reaction to naysayers who say that these films are sensationalistic and exploit the least privileged members of society. It’s a question that is often asked to documentary filmmakers but it was the first time that I was confronted with it as a director for a television drama. I found myself telling Cindy that naysayers should keep at it. After all, what culture is cultivated when solidarity (or unity) can only be expressed through supportive words and pleasantries?

I couldn’t help but connect that discussion’s timeliness and relevance to a recent debate about film criticism. Last August, amid the frenzy of the Cinemalaya Independent Film Festival, a self-styled reviewer came out with a ranking of all the full-length feature finalists, complete with witty captions and ratings on a scale of five stars to negative infinity. This sparked a heated discussion among media and entertainment creatives, all chiming in to respond to questions like, are reviewers the same as critics? Or are some of them merely naysayers? Are scathing reviews valid or are they discouraging to new filmmakers and perhaps even injurious to the development of the local film and television industry?

I avoided saying anything about it back then because as a filmmaker, I know how words cut deep when spoken against one’s labour of love. Plus it was obvious that I was of the minority opinion. It seemed like to stand beside this critic is to be across my fellow creatives. Post-virality, it seemed moot to revive that discussion after everything that’s already been said. But does the question of who gets to say what about which issue ever get resolved with finality?

My take on the matter is that any feedback – whether in the form of tweets by regular moviegoers, art cards by backyard movie reviewers, or scholarly analysis by PhD-wielding film critics – is valid and can serve to help an artist become better in their craft. If one can calm themselves and not see every bad reaction to their work as a personal attack, they might find that somewhere in there is an opportunity to understand the audience. (Never mind those who comment without bothering to see the work first. They don’t get to call themselves ‘the audience’.) What works for them and why? Who is this audience and what influences their tastes or biases? What sets their expectations and what defies them for the better?

At the end of the day, these ‘naysayers,’ or ’bashers,’ are still audiences who spent time, effort, and sometimes even money, to watch, scrutinise, and write about my work. In my book, that gives them permission to say what they want, parliamentary courtesy be damned! (Sorry, I meant professional). One doesn’t need to be a licensed critic to earn the right to criticise. (There is no exam for it, anyway).

Criticisms are bitter pills, never easy to swallow because art is personal. As audiences, we are not required to watch every “masterpiece” and “trash” that gets shown on a screen, are we? As creators, we are not obligated to respond to every negative word written about our work either. How they react to my work is on them. How I react to their review is on me. Artists should learn to take what they can and move on from it. However painful or bruising it is to our ego, terrible or uncouth writing should never be reason enough to disenfranchise someone. At the very least, artists should see negative criticisms as an invitation for discourse and reflection. At best, it should provide impetus for artistic growth.

Critics and creatives are not enemies. If we truly want a thriving creative industry, we should never discourage critics from speaking their minds whether they’re of the professional or the pretentious kind, the intelligent or the illiterate lot. In the same way, we should never discriminate on who gets to speak against EJKs, budget hearings, or confidential funds.

If anything, we should urge each other to speak louder.