Much hype accompanied this movie release, after all it was a John Sayles film, known for titles such as Matewan, Lone Star and some 17 films he wrote and directed, a few of them, politically aware themes. Amigo would best fall under the latter category. He also recently published A Moment in the Sun (2011), a novel about the same historical period as the Amigo film. Not to bias my review of the movie, I chose not to read the novel until I have seen the movie and rely solely on my knowledge of this historical period, after all it was my undergraduate and graduate major. That said, I was profoundly dissatisfied with the movie, its storyline, its production qualities, and its lack of appeal to viewers who are looking not simply for a visual reference to this epic struggle between an emerging nation and a self-professed imperial military power, but also for a deeper understanding of the American pysche who until now, despite scores of books and other documentaries that preceded Amigo, refuses to acknowledge the great injustice that the US inflicted upon the Filipinos in it’s time of need by refusing to acknowledge Aguinaldo’s fledging republic –the only one in Asia. Instead, Aguinaldo was out maneuvered, while US politicians coveted a piece of Asia. After centuries under Spain who falsely promised a just life under God, the US as it’s new colonizer, after winning Spain’s territories in a one sided war, would also promise a life under the lofty ideals of the god of democracy but instead maintained the Philippines as an experiment in neocolonialism that spawned two decades later, a large scale importation of cheap labor into Hawaii and California. It was only recently that the Library of Congress, the great repository and archive of American memory, recognized the Philippine American War as a historiographic event, worthy of its classification separate from the centuries old rubric “Spanish American War”, and only after a few Filipino-American scholars questioned its absence from the record. American school textbook writers would not even include it in it’s list of glorious military events. In the eyes of the common public, the “war” was a non- event. While, in supreme irony, the hapless Filipino labor immigrant who landed in San Francisco in the 30’s would walk past the shadow of Admiral George Dewey’s memorial at the San Francisco Union Square that celebrated his victory over the decrepit Spanish armada in 1898. The contemporary Filipino American public school child, whose history was ignored in his textbooks, did not even know a war was fought for his ancestors freedom by a duly constituted republican army against the US.
Amigo explores the dilemma of the various protagonists in the story- an architect-turned-soldier; a Southern farm boy soldier; the town headsman Rafael and his patriotic young son Juaquinito; a gung-ho army colonel from the Indian Wars; the town headman’s brother with the revolutionary army; and the Castillan village priest, a remnant of the old empire. The setting is the fictional village of San Isidro, somewhere in Batangas or perhaps a fictional province (the movie was shot on the island of Bohol). The otherwise bucolic atmosphere hides the sentiments of the villagers sympathetic to the revolution, whose younger men have joined. When the US army arrived at San Isidro, the Philippine -American War had reached its waning phase. Manila was in the Americans hands and Aguinaldo’s army who have reverted to guerilla warfare had retreated deeper into the mountains of the north. Filipino resistance was still strong in the provinces, whose soldiers the Americans have now branded as “ladrones” -bandits, to demonize them in the eyes of those Filipinos who while professing to be amigo (friend) to the Americans, continued to support the guerrillas. Like San Isidro, Batangas festered with such “bandits” and the US had to devise a guerrilla pacification program, the historical roots of counter insurgency tactics overseas. Batangas was particularly targeted for social engineering by the US army.
In San Isidro, Colonel Hardacre orders his men to set up a garrison, one of the several that the Americans have established as a supply and communications line (by telegraph) to isolate the guerrillas further into the jungle and away from the town. Led by their architect-turned soldier, Lt. Compton, the garrison settled down to a more or less comfortable co-existence with the Filipino villagers aided by the Castillian priest who had been imprisoned earlier by the revolutionaries, until his release by the Americans. A strange alliance between the lieutenant and the priest developed — the former colonizer tutoring the future colonizer, with the priest serving as the translator for US policies. Rafael, the village headman, in contrast, was torn between his loyalty to his brother’s cause and his responsibility to the village and his properties. Convinced that they were there to earn the “hearts and minds” of the people (a clear reference to the Vietnam war counter insurgency term) , the lieutenant helps build a thatched house and agrees to hold the annual feast of San Isidro, the village patron saint. Here, the movie attempts at ethnography by showing the elaborate process of house building, to the wonderment of the architect-lieutenant, and by evoking the typical activities of a village feast – procession, music, food and drink, much to the enjoyment of the soldiers. The day after the feast, the Colonel rides into the village only to find the sentry snoring after a night of drinking the local liquor, tuba. He berates the soldiers and gives them their new orders – reconcentrado, to secure the village with surrounding barb wire and with strict orders to contain the villagers within it. Food and grain was to be rationed and the carabaos which served as plow animals were slaughtered. By hamleting, as the practice was to be reused later in the Vietnam war, the purpose was to starve the guerrillas by restricting their access to food and military intelligence.
As they wait out the monsoon season, the endless rain takes its toll on both the Americans and starving guerrillas. Informants for the guerrillas reported that the headman Rafael was truly collaborating with the enemy. Simon, the guerrilla leader, orders the assassination of his own brother. Fortunately for Rafael, the assassin was shot dead by a sentry as he infiltrated the village. When the rains stopped, the guerrillas spring to action, killing the Chinese coolies who worked for the Americans. Their murder triggers an investigation by the Colonel. Intent on ferreting out the guerrilla sympathizers among the villagers, the Colonel accuses Rafael. He is water tortured and forced to reveal his brother’s hideout but misleads the American patrol who return to San Isidro empty handed. As they march back to the village marching to the tune of “Damn, damn, the insurrectos”, a song apparently still sang within military associations, they are ambushed and some US soldiers and guerillas were killed, including Simon’s son. Convinced of his involvement with the guerrillas, the Rafael is summarily sentenced to hang. Meanwhile, news of Aguinaldo’s capture and proclamation of amnesty to the guerrillas, have reached the headquarters. As the order of amnesty was transmitted by telegraph to San Isidro, the Rafael’s son Juaquinito, undertakes a mission to cut the telegraph wires. The amnesty message is cut short and fails to reach San Isidro. Rafael was executed, in spite of the Lieutenant’s hopes for a delay.
Sayles storytelling skills are legend and Amigo perhaps counts as one of his better ones. To those who are not familiar with the details of the Philippine American war, the movie could be a good war story – a story of inadvertent circumstances that no one has any control over, except to act out their destiny. The historical references are relatively accurate – imprisoned Spanish priest, reconcentrado, water torture, Aguinaldo, the racist songs, and even a surprising inclusion of Chinese coolies, heretofore visually absent from standard history accounts. The local color is generally spot on and evokes the rural life of turn-of-century Filipinos. To Sayles’ credit, the whole dialogue by the Filipino actors is in Tagalog , a major breakthrough from US-made movies featuring Filipino actors who spoke Tagalog merely to orientalize their characters. Rather than attempt to excoriate the reasons for American imperialism, Sayles relied on his storytelling to bring the audience to their own conclusion about US motives. Unfortunately, his silence on this issue, does not help educate the public exactly about ambitious politicians of the period,who were apparently only too ready to disavow America’s professed advocacy of democratic ideals in spite of the protestation of progressive Americans like Mark Twain and William Jennings Bryan. American exceptionalism became a convenient excuse for imperialism, justified as manifest destiny. By focusing solely on the personal lives of the protagonists like Rafael and the Lieutenant, it avoids having to answer the larger moral question of the impact of the war on Filipino and American society. The reconcentrado was effective in starving out the guerillas but it did so at the expense of the non-combatants as well. As in other parts of the Luzon, farm productivity declined with the loss of the carabao population for field plowing. Batangas, a province that was singled out for social engineering (a precursor of counter insurgency programs), became severely depleted in food resources. Not only that, it pitted the revolutionaries versus the collaborators, such that with the victory of American rule, it shifted the democratic gains of a brotherly revolution and back slided to the elitism that characterized colonial society. Witness Rafael’s brother in law who was only to happy to become the headman and to be addressed Señor after Rafael was arrested and sentenced to death. It also reinforced landlord capitalism that threw many landless peasants to migrate towards Manila and ultimately, as cheap labor for the plantations of Hawaii and the fields of California within two decades that followed. Amigo also down plays the racist nature of this war. The use of “gugu” or “ladrones” and the soldier’s verbal diarrhea in attempting to mimic Tagalog sounds, were symptomatic of the war mongering hysteria that the American press fed to the US public. The American press portrayed the Filipinos as a backward race and refused to acknowledge its three centuries of westernization. Amigo’s soldier’s appeared ahistorically polite, except perhaps for the Indian-hating Colonel who was more in character albeit, in caricature. Except for a handful of American defectors who did fight with the revolutionary army, the typical US soldier fought this war as a racist war and was only too glad to cycle back to the mainland when their tour was over.
There are however, moments of philosophical insights that gives credit to Sayle’s known sensitivity and social awareness. The ambivalence of Lt. Compton is worthy of mention. His slow realization of the Filipino dilemma of choice between country and kin is apparent but weakly developed. Can we conclude perhaps that here was a Thomasite teacher-in-awaiting, a former architect who might be involved in rebuilding the foundations of a new country as many of his fellow soldier did post-war? But we know little of his inner thoughts. The cockfight scene with quick cuts between scenes of skirmish between the guerillas and the soldiers exhibited an understanding of raw bravery and the honor of battle. Finally, the irony and drama of the telegraph that could have saved and commuted Rafael’s life, only to die because of his son’s patriotic passion. This scene was probably the most gripping with the camera racing to follow the code as it sped along the telegraph wire (a movie cliche understandably) towards San Isidro. The symbolism is suggestive. Is Sayles saying that technology – symbolized by the telegraph – was to be the false savior of the Filipinos, it’s rescue from the monastic culture that Spain has wrought as evinced by the village priest and its entry into the modern market? Is Juaquinito’s act of passion a rejection of technology that is not of his own making and merely a historical accident, yet unbenownst to him, was the very act that sealed his own father’s fate? In the end, Juaquinito accepts amnesty and surrenders his hard won rifle for a few pesos. The fighting actually continued on for another decade.
At it’s best, Amigo is a good anti-war film. It shows that at the level of personal stories, war is a matter of life and death outside of the machinations of its proponents who are usually headquartered far from the battle or from Washington, D.C., and logically futile. Soldiers all but obey their orders regardless of the consequences. Sayles must be commended for re-introducing this pivotal event in American history onto the 21st century American public, an event that has been hidden yet romanticized as a “splendid little war”, an adventurous aberration in American exceptionalism that was only too soon forgotten. Yet the acquisition of the Philippines as a colony brought wealth to well known US corporations like Goodrich (rubber), Dole (fruits); introduced new language into the American consciousness – boondocks, Manila folders, hemp cord, .45 caliber, Muslim (Moro) fighters, water torture, and counter-insurgency, not to mention the cheap labor that made California prosperous. Amigo is a good movie but not a great, brilliant movie. I only hope Sayles’ monumental 955-page book, A Moment in the Sun, is more profound.
