jump to navigation

Captive (Brillante Mendoza, 2012) June 15, 2012

Posted by Richard Bolisay in Asian Films, French Spring.

Directed by Brillante Mendoza
Written by Brillante Mendoza, Patrick Bancarel, Boots Agbayani Pastor, and Arlyn dela Cruz
Cast: Isabelle Huppert, Kathy Mulville, Mark Zanetta, Maria Isabel Lopez, Mercedes Cabral, Ronnie Lazaro

There is hardly anything in Captive that puts the Philippines in a positive light, but director Brillante Mendoza makes it clear that he doesn’t give a fuck. Reading his interviews, it is obvious that he chooses to present these ugly situations because no other filmmaker is brave enough to confront them, and as someone positioned in the forefront of Philippine cinema—being the first Filipino to compete in three of the world’s most prestigious film festivals: Cannes, Venice, and Berlin—his voice is certainly one to be reckoned with, a privilege that, regardless of your perception of his work, he has earned through the years. However, being an established international filmmaker entails greater responsibilities, and his inability to fulfill some of them leaves him in a dangerous terrain. Lola poses doubts regarding his opportunistic tendency, but Captive confirms it—in fact it commits the biggest blunder of his career, one that shatters all his good credentials, exposes his sickening imprudence, and makes him deserving of many harsh judgments.

When you watch Captive, you are never drawn to it: it paints a repulsive picture and you accept it as it is. You sit there and allow it to rape you. You won’t have any moment to process its images and understand what they mean because they don’t mean anything else aside from what’s there. The visuals are arresting as much as they are hollow. From start to finish, Mendoza has not considered the possibility of letting go of his shock and awe treatment. Every sequence has to be a spectacle, every scene has to grab your attention, and every turn of event has to add to the chaos. The film is so preoccupied by this sense of entitlement that it actually strangles you, a ploy that disables you to assess its worth. He shows Muslim rebels throwing a box of bibles at the water and hitting a Catholic statue with a gun, but he doesn’t want you to ponder on those. Instead he wants you to notice the parallelism he makes with the presence of wild animals: the snake eating a chick, the bats hanging from the tree branches, the hornets disturbing a funeral, the mythical bird that Isabelle Huppert sees flying around the forest. This goes on for at least two hours. As a viewer, how can you not be offended by this setup?

Amid the uproar provided by the encounters between the military and the insurgents, the movie’s quiet moments stand out the most. There’s that scene where Isabelle eats a cracker and looks distraught, her face sweaty and numb from all the day’s events, trying hard to make sense of everything. The interview with the American couple—Martin and Gracia Burnham?—and Isabelle lights up a number of emotional fuses, connecting realities that have gradually become hazy as the movie progresses. There’s another sequence where Isabelle spends time with one of his captors, a teenager whose early life is exposed to violence. They talk about their personal lives, Isabelle remembering her children in France and the kid, though hesitant at first, eventually opening up his thoughts on his religion. It’s supposed to feel like a gloomy mother-and-child portrait, a taste of water in the desert, only it does the opposite because Mendoza handles the dynamics carelessly. When the boy puts his head on Isabelle’s lap there is some sort of gesture that suggests sexual tension, an awkwardness that may be natural in some cases, but in the movie looks so gross, leaving an incomprehensibly bad aftertaste.

Of course, Mendoza is a clever craftsman. Some of the observations mentioned above do not sink in fully as you watch the film. You stay in your seat until it becomes clear that there is nothing in it that will stop its penchant for sadism. The film may thrive on filth and noise but it is never void of perspective. Sloppily, it unfolds the story and presents several contradictions. You can feel the material push through methodically, with every bit of violence and anger shoved down your throat, as the characters are reduced to lousy caricatures of good and evil. The hostage-takers and hostages stay with you but only as cardboard cutouts: they are victims of misrepresentation, the writers failing to provide them with a sincere emotional side that holds up until the end. Captive is based on true events—the infamous Dos Palmas kidnappings in May 2001, whose duration intersected with the September 11 attacks in the US—but not on true sentiments. Mendoza simplifies the whole Mindanao issue, heedless of its historical and political complexity, and dismisses the nitty-gritty of the armed conflict. Should the producers decide to show this film in Mindanao, it’s like waiting for a bomb to explode and wreak havoc.

Furthermore, it is not a question of faithfulness to the material. It is a matter of presenting a narrative without taking advantage of its multifaceted nature, without subscribing to the ideas that promote aggression based on differences, and without affronting a piece of history that is bigger than whatever the movie is trying to say. Mendoza could have fictionalized the details of the kidnappings and done away with the dates and places, and manage to achieve a much thoughtful view of the situation—one that could have started with an honest admission that he is not above it—but instead he illustrates in depth his insubstantial assessments and conclusions. It is a film that skates on polemics and cacophony, a political movie without a respectable principle, a traveling circus filled with shows that offer cheap thrills. What’s worse than a badly made film is an egotistical movie that cannot hide its posturing, and Mendoza, who has made enough movies to deserve scrutiny from head to toe, is again oblivious to the fact that the personal is always political, that his intentions are clear regardless of his press statements.

Having considered its merits, you may ask: is Captive an experience worth having? Where do you draw the line between its Machiavellian vanity and actual involvement? When do you realize that the discussions it provokes are never really meant to enrich one’s understanding of the war in Mindanao but to emphasize the director’s shady and astigmatic view of it? Arguments will be made and piled on top of one another, but the answers, depending on your sensibilities as a moviegoer, cannot be anything but well defined. You cannot be halfhearted about it. Perhaps even its initial three-hour running time cannot hide its stink. Its trickery is calculated, and it’s acceptable that the urge to throw up is triggered not by the film but by the filmmaking.



1. Raphael - June 15, 2012

Very harsh review, but could be true knowing the director’s style and cerebral capacity. Shallowness and pretensions could be very obvious in most.

2. Jayclops - June 15, 2012

sana nga mapalabas dito sa Mindanao. very interested to see its polemics with regards to the Mindanao issue. tingnan natin. haha

3. angel ong - July 12, 2012

hhhmm interesting,,,,, sana maging actor ako ni direct

4. Chin (@ChinPossible) - July 16, 2012

“An egotistical movie that cannot hide its posturing” – Two things: I agree, and you have balls.

5. Marcus - September 9, 2012

There is a thing called “hidden meaning”. There is also a thing called “montage”. I think it’s selfish of you to claim that the movie is not good just because it gives negative impressions about the Philippines. Actually, the film revealed not only to other countries but especially to the Filipinos how dirty the government can be. The problem with most Filipinos is they only want optimism on everything. So what if it conveys negative impact to the country? IT IS THE TRUTH. IT’S WHAT HAPPENS BEYOND EVERY NEWS REPORTS WE GET. We should praise Mendoza for his courage. Not all filmmakers have the guts like his. Besides, instead of clinging to your pride, why don’t you use the film as an eye opener, eh?

6. joy - September 10, 2012

easily, an embarassment from philippine cinema…..the worst film any filipino director can make

7. Richard Bolisay - September 10, 2012


Mendoza’s courage is empty because he doesn’t recognize the depth of the problems that he is presenting. In fact, his filmmaking does more harm than good because it exposes the little knowledge and understanding he has of the Mindanao situation. There is more to this war than the traditional representations of good and evil, and the cliches that Captive un-apologetically shows are enough reasons to be alarmed.

You’re saying that the film is an eye opener? What does it open aside from its filthy filmmaking? What use is having guts if that person doesn’t have any idea what he’s talking about? This is not about being optimistic. And you’re wrong to think that I detest the film only because it puts the country in a bad light.

8. Terry - September 11, 2012


Every line of criticism, to be understood must be seen in the context of a whole. In this case, the line of criticism against government “dirt” (as you would like to call it) is in the right place, I agree. Perhaps, it is even conservative. But this is not the only line of criticism that the film takes, and it is hardly its whole point.

It enters a room, locks it, shoots everyone, physically and morally, that one realizes in the end that only one captive was really saved in this film. And the rest, perhaps and ambiguously, deserves the captivity.

Now, I can’t continue to use the word “criticism” because I may give the impression that the film (IMO) really did criticize more than create a spectacle out of every one depicted in the hostage crisis, one turn after another, after another, after another without a solid base. I am not sure if this reflects an intention or if it reflects a script. But, the way it is told, visualized and characterized tells me of one “hidden meaning”, as you would like to call it– that this, ladies and gentlemen, jararan, jararan, jararan! — is the jungle called Mindanao.

I won’t pretend to be expert on the Mindanao situation especially that I know it is very often a matter of point of view. And in such a complex, ongoing and real situation with ongoing and real victims and villains, there are points of view that help and points of view that don’t — regardless of any intention, lack of intention or interpretation of intentions that filmmakers and few audiences would like to claim. Now going back to the room where everyone was shot, where and how do you take off from there, intellectually, morally, emotionally?

“IT IS THE TRUTH. IT’S WHAT HAPPENS BEYOND EVERY NEWS REPORTS WE GET”. – No. It is a design derived from part-truths and made into a whole. What part-truths it took and how it was made into that whole is the thing in question. Filmmaking in our country, as it is today, unlike journalism which has claimed hundreds of lives in the Philippines, is still more about choices and options than about guts.

Guts, we all wish to see this. In fact, we need this more and more that sometimes, we mistake things to be it, when they are not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: