honest review of Quezon (2025) coming from a historian, marxist, activist, and former very active member in bayaniserye fandom:
There’s a hole at the center of the film Quezon. Who was actually fighting for Philippine independence during the American colonial period? The film’s, quite frankly, ahistorical answer is that no one was.
It certainly can’t be Quezon, because ultimately the argument by the end of the film was that Quezon was a corrupt, self-interested politician. While he would promise to fight for immediate independence in public to garner public support, behind closed doors was another story, as he would collaborate with the American colonizers and confide in them that he truly didn’t believe the country was “ready” for independence.
But perhaps most egregiously, the film also answers that the working classes did not fight for independence. In fact, there was hardly any space for the working classes in the film at all. The most we received was a sequence where Gov. Gen Leonard Wood conducts an inspection across the archipelago, asks Filipino peasants if they want independence, and their answer is that independence must be a delicious food. Subsequently, Quezon and Osmeña both agree that the Philippines is indeed “not ready” for immediate independence at all. And while the film later establishes that not everything politicians like Quezon say are correct, this idea is not returned to, much less so challenged or proven otherwise. This very idea that the Philippines must first be "ready" for independence--a myth propagated by American colonial propaganda--is not challenged.
What kind of elitista, matapobre argument is this? I thought we were moving past this already, especially since the 2022 national elections when it was a major talking point. Has this movie been in production for so long that it’s actually fallen behind? What about the Filipino labor movement, established way back in 1902, that incorporated political and pro-independence demands into its platforms? What about the peasant movements? By 1935, we already had the first Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas, which was anti-imperialist.
But the film isn’t equipped to accommodate these historical facts at all, because it’s designed to focus on Quezon. Even if it ultimately deconstructs Quezon, it is still all about Quezon. I understand the educative value in taking such an approach, and I believe the film’s purpose is to respond to textbook history, therefore the Great Man approach was necessary, because big names are what most people would remember from school. Still, I wonder if we are digging ourselves into a hole that constricts history to “heroes,” and little space for popular movements and the working classes. I wish we had something new.
Emphasis as well on the word “man.” There’s a mid-credits teaser that hints at a potential fourth entry into the Bayaniverse series, this time featuring… Ramon Magsaysay. I could understand the first two, perhaps three movies… but you’re making another movie, and you’re still just focusing on a male figure of power? Surely this is enough to show the constraints of the “bayaniverse” formula.
Heneral Luna and Goyo were formative for my teenage years. Participating with the fandom on tumblr meant, for me, to play “historian,” thus I was encouraged to imagine a future for myself in the historical discipline. Several years older and having earned my history degree, I’m still appreciative of that time, but I also see its limits. I’m not sure if Heneral Luna was able to truly expand my idea of history at the time, as I continued to understand it being about heroes and trivia. My opinions on the movies have evolved, as my research interests have evolved as well. Now, I do social history, whereas if you asked my fifteen year-old self before, all I would’ve wanted to research was Mabini, lol.
If you want to read an approach to history that's different from the films--that focuses on heroes and individuals--I recommend The Philippines: A Past Revisited by Renato Constantino, that centers the masses and their struggles for liberation. The American period section of the book also dedicates a lot of time to deconstruct Manuel L. Quezon, and clearly explains how he was a collaborator with the colonizers.
