With the way it was hyped to be a tearjerker that would stir patriotic feelings, some expected President Rodrigo Duterte’s State of the Nation Address would be as great as Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
And with no less than famed filmmaker Brillante Mendoza directing camera shots and angles to enhance impact and capture nuances and range of emotions as Duterte delivers his first Sona, many looked forward to a promise of brilliance.
But judging from the flurry of criticism in social media, it turned out to be a big letdown for those whose expectations were raised. Despite the remarkable performance of Duterte in captivating the audience, many felt they were taken for a ride by all the hype and spin in the days prior to the Sona.
Netizens vented their ire on Secretary Martin Andanar whose credibility—his essence for being, as head of Malacañang’s Communications Office—has been put in question following his earlier pronouncements that turned out to be way off from what actually happened.
Andanar earlier gave the impression the President’s address will run for about 38 minutes, or a bit longer with adlibs and applause, and “will be a very powerful speech that will awaken the patriot” in Filipinos. “The first time I read the speech, it made me cry,” Andanar told media.
As it turned out, Duterte spoke for an hour and 32 minutes. And no “crying patriots” could be seen. “Did anybody cry? I thought his speech is going to be full of drama and sadness, I guess Andanar is just very sensitive… easy to cry,” netizen Sherlyn posted.
Asked by reporters how he felt about Mendoza’s work, Andanar blurted: “Very, very satisfied.” He was proud of the frequent use of the worm’s eye view, low-angle camera shot. “That’s a Brillante Mendoza shot,” he beamed.
But many netizens saw differently. They felt the worm’s eye view, intended by Mendoza to make Duterte look powerful, was used too often that it distracted viewers. Some jokingly asked if it was a way of peeping into the mind of the President—through his nostrils.
The worm’s eye view shot, taken from an extremely low angle—from the vantage point of a small child or one lying on the ground—can make the viewed subject look not only mighty, but also menacing and threatening.
A mean-looking Duterte could strike fear in the hearts of criminals, but does he really want to appear like that when reaching out to the Filipino people through the Sona?
Even Hitler—in the 1935 Triumph of the Will that is recognized as one of the greatest propaganda films in history and has influenced modern documentaries—was not viewed from such a tight and low angle. The power angles were higher; it seemed the camera was at waist level, slightly tilted upward and from a farther distance.
Using a worm’s eye view so President Duterte looks powerful in the eyes of people watching TV may be inappropriate amid the Constitutional principle that “sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”
Thus, Mendoza’s use of the power shot taken at a tight and extremely low angle conveys a somewhat misplaced idea if indeed all government power comes from the sovereign Filipino people.
“When you articulate something and you shoot that person in that angle, psychologically it gives you that meaning that he has power and authority,” Mendoza said in media interviews. “It might not look good when you watch it but, psychologically, it gives you that impression.”
So why still do it if it might not look good? Was it really necessary to give the impression of a very powerful Duterte when in fact he owes his landslide victory to the real power—the sovereign people from whom all government authority emanates?
Would it be more proper to use bird’s eye view or other high-angle shots more often than worm’s eye view, if only to make people rightfully feel a sense of power over government leaders while watching the Sona on TV? Perhaps.
Or, perhaps not. Especially so if the award-winning director saw the worm’s eye view as the best way to project Duterte as standing tall, every inch a revered and trusted leader, a source of great pride for everyone, not only for the more than 16 million Filipinos who catapulted him to the highest post in the land.
Mendoza says he understands if many didn’t comprehend the reasons for his unconventional shots and camera angles, pointing out that not all who watched the Sona were “film literate.” He said his intention was to make it different from past Sonas and to make people watch it and not be bored.
But many disagree. With Duterte’s superb ability to connect with the audience especially with his adlibs, many say they don’t find the President boring, no matter what camera angles he is viewed with.
I don’t profess to be film literate, but I think Mendoza could have done better with eye-level “close-ups” if his intention for the directorial job on Duterte’s first Sona was, as he said, to “capture what kind of President he is” and to be “able to communicate and connect” with the people who “would be able to understand him.”
He had a lot to choose from: medium close-ups to extreme close-ups or the choker shot—showing Duterte’s face from just above the eyebrows to below the mouth—that should be timed perfectly to catch the facial expression when he gets real serious and wants to stress a point. And such is more effective if the President is advised beforehand to face a specific area so he could be looking directly at a camera for the close-up.
Andanar said those who don’t like the work of the acclaimed director should “have to be Brillante Mendoza first.” Good point. After all, Mendoza would not have won at Cannes were it not for his sheer brilliance.
But, as animation producer Edwin Guillermo—who’s probably film literate—said on Facebook, “I understand he wants to experiment with techniques, however, the venue and audience for that doesn’t seem right.”
Perhaps other ace directors like the legendary Al Quinn and Johnny Manahan—who both had tremendous successes with the greatest projects on Philippine TV—could have done better.