Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Maza, Anton Gabriel L. Nov.

8, 2017

09-0130

“Mount Banahaw: Sacred and Profane”: A Journey Through Video Editing

Introduction

For his second documentary, director and producer Dempster Samarista tackled once again

the Filipino identity through cultural practices in “Mount Banahaw: Sacred and Profane”. Like his first

documentary, “Taguri”, Samarista provided a fresh, if not more different, perspective on how Filipinos

view themselves as a human being connected by nature and spirituality (practiced through religion).

Samarista himself, a convert of Islam, said that while doing the shoot, which took him and his crew

three years to make, was changed by his experience at Banahaw’s mostly Christian practices. He also

tied an element in the film to cosmological references, which will be pointed out later. But, the hallmark

of the film is its editing which is the glue that connects the narrative of “Banahaw”. [Note: I watched

“Banahaw” twice: with my high school friends, and with my girlfriend.] The two are discussed here and

be known as a “journey.”

Filipino Identity Through Religious Practice – The First Journey

At the center of the film is Mount Banahaw, a volcano that towers between Laguna and

Quezon; at its perimeter, the pilgrims of different religious sects. Following a small Ifugao group and

their preparation for their pilgrimage, the journey transistions to another group of pilgrims and their

practice and goes on throughout the film, alternating between film crews who were also stationed

around the mountain.

The locals and even those who go there regularly during the Holy Week consider Mount

Banahaw as a “holy mountain”. This dates back to the Spanish colonial era when one of the locals

was revealed of a place filled with springs and caves, and places with Biblical allusions. Many of the
practices are based in Christianity, which the Spanish used to colonize the Philippines. However, as

the film progressed, the evolution of the practices became unique to Filipinos. Meanwhile, some of the

devout question the purpose of outsiders going to the mountain.

One of the people interviewed posed a point: that those coming from the city looks at the

mountain as an escape; that the mountain has become a place for people to enjoy than marvel at.

However, this was debunked by another person from the city and said that those from the city gets

lessons from coming to the mountain and learns how to let go of their preconcieved notions of religion,

of their life, by listening to the debates of the religious sects. This statement became clear when the

part where a group of people gathered and talked about the essence of belief was shown.

Essential to understanding “Banahaw” is the understanding of “Taguri” and both have unifying

themes despite being two different documentaries with different subjects. With “Taguri”, the kite-flyers

have their own system of belief based on how the kites behave while in the air. They also have linked

kite-flying to their spiritual beliefs and cosmological views. “Banahaw”, on the other hand, is more

explicit in the two common themes. Yet, the mountain itself is the subject. Nature and spirituality is the

thread that connects “Banahaw” and “Taguri”.

Editing: The Link That Binds The Story Together – The Second Journey

Different perspectives were displayed in the film. The Ifugao group, according to the director,

was in Banahaw to finish the ritual of their leader. From there, the other footages of the film crew

stationed around the mountian were shown. Surprisingly, as a member of the audience, it did not feel

like the documentary was all around the place. It was smooth and logical. The points of the people

interviewed in the film were superspersed with images of people doing pilgrimage, for example, to

either support or debunk their statements. This could only be achieved through the use of editing. Like

“Taguri”,”Banahaw” goes from the introduction (Taguri: the creation of the taguri; Banahaw: the Ifguao

group preparing for their ritual), then an interview with one of the elders of the community is shown

stating his perspectives of changes in his surrounding, connected to his own experience. This is then

connected to a philosophical theme (cosmology) that Samarista feels at home discussing about albeit

in film form.
Transitions to other footages were consistent: statement of the interviewee, image of religious

practice; or the footage of religious practice then a still shot of nature transitioning to another practice.

Samarista noted that the feeling of “being there” was what he wanted to achieve in the film. I think that

he succeeded in doing this because of editing. What also struck me was how logical the flow of the

documentary was. Like in his previous film, Samarista had connected common themes in the

sequencing of the film. I surmise that this is a diffcult task since he has different film crews with

different footages (that is, not his own). But, during the Q & A session, Samarista said that he gave an

outline to the crew. This means that a framework was already made in his mind that he translated to

his crew. This process became effective when the film was shown.

Important for every narrative is its logical flow. “Banahaw” was edited as if it was a book filled

with many stories, an anthology, but with a unified theme. Again, common to Samarista’s two

documentaries are its connection to nature and spirituality. Employing those two themes in “Banahaw”

did not feel forced to the audience. Those beside me in the movie house talked a bit about how they

were immersed in the story that they had anticipated the themes, aside from the nature of the film

itself as a film about the mountain and its connection to religious practices.

Carlos Victoriano (27 y/o, UP- D, BA Art Studies): “I did expect the two themes [nature and

spirituality]. It was not hard to follow despite the many perspectives.”

Diwata Abueva (21 y/o, UP-D, BFA Studio Arts): “I had a feeling that the themes were about

nature and spirituality. I just felt that how it was shown was so good. The movie was an immersion.”

They were also shown “Taguri” before the short interview at Victoriano’s home.

Marren Verdeflor (20 y/o, PUP, BA Journalism) was “confused at first” when she watched

“Banahaw” without the exposure of watching “Taguri”: “I thought I was watching something else with

the film [“Banahaw”] because of the different perspectives. It was only when the philosophical and

historical topics were talked about that I got the idea that I was following the narrative of different

perspectives.” Verdeflor’s statement echoed mine when “Taguri” was shown in the classroom,

exposing me to Samarista’s first documentary. Despite this, Verdeflor understood that there were two
themes in the film that were connected. She also noted that the editing did not feel that the film was

“like a hodgepodge of different perspectives.”

Victoriano praised its editing and agreed with me that it glued the documentary together: “I

wish I could do something like that in the future” said Victoriano. Citing the transition and sequencing

as an integral part of post-production. “You can gather all the video you want but if you can’t

synthesize those into digestible pieces: it overwhelms the intended audience. . . That’s where editing

comes in” he added.

Conclusion

Samarista provided the audience of Banahaw a journey in two ways: (a) the

intellectual/emotional journey through the themes, and (b) through the visual storytelling by the use of

editing. By these two methods of journey, he successfully wrapped his audience in the story of the

people in Mount Banahaw while, at the same time, fulfilling his own objective of showing the Filipino

identity of being close to nature and spirits. He also pointed out during the Q & A that Filipinos are

naturally spiritual and that was lost because of our modern habits, especially with the advent of

technology. He said that he likes to document Filipino traditions and link them to a greater theme. He

hinted of a third project of the same nature.

During my interview with Victoriano and Abueva, Victoriano stressed the greater impact of

having a fundamental technique while relating it to Film history: “Editing was at the center of Russian

montage! That in itself is an important part of filmmaking. We cannot be ignorant of the techniques

available out there just to be ‘new’ or unique. In fact, it is quite the opposite: to be ‘new’, you have to

be creative with your use of the old techniques.”

In the process of making films himself, Victoriano noted that his exposure to Samarista’s films

also mirrors mine when I pointed out that “Taguri” and “Banahaw” are journeys. He expanded on the

concept: “The journey in the films was as you mentioned, and it was also a unique experience to even

have seen it without prior knowledge of the director’s previous work. I think the other journey here from

the one you mentioned is the journey of experiencing a different way of seeing documentaries
showing Filipino culture” he said. He lessons he learned from the editing techniques of Samarista will

“be applied” in his film, he added.

In the greater study of film, the editing process is important because it relates to how the

director and producer wants the story to be told not only through the film’s content. Film, as a visual

art, should also make use of time in a way that it does not drain the viewer and engages them and

editing could do this function by applying logical flow to the film.


Bibilography

Samarista, Dempster: “Taguri” (2013)

Samarista, Dempster: “Mount Banahaw: Sacred and Profane” (2017)

Interviews with Carlos Victoriano, Diwata Abueva, and Marren Verdeflor (2017)

Вам также может понравиться