‘Magellan’ exposes cost of colonization and the struggle for freedom

CEBU, Philippines — There’s a price to pay for colonizers who conquer lands and forcibly impose their culture and beliefs on the natives, and Ferdinand Magellan paid it with his life. On the other side, an enslaved person may have to resort to violent means to achieve freedom from their oppressors. Magellan’s slave Enrique was a willing accomplice in a war that killed his master.

Two notable things in Lav Diaz’s interpretation of the Battle of Mactan: First, we don’t see a one-on-one combat between Magellan and his crew versus the natives, with the film relying on meticulous sound design and focusing on mundane imagery to paint how violent the struggle was; second, and most notable, is that Lapulapu is not in charge because he is not even a character in the film, with Diaz firm in his research that he is a mythical being invented by Rajah Humabon.

But whether Lapulapu exists or not is not the question we should be asking about the movie. Rather, what does Diaz’s re-telling of the Portuguese explorer’s life tell us about our country today?

Proceed with caution, as this review contains major spoilers.

Throughout its two-hour-and-40-minute runtime (one of Diaz’s shortest), we see Gael García Bernal embody our infamous colonizer, chronicling his earlier colonization of Malacca, where he enslaved Enrique (Amado Arjay Babon), his return to Portugal before moving to Spain to start another expedition that would have been the first European voyage to Asia through the Pacific Ocean, and their eventual arrival in Cebu.

Magellan is dedicated to his mission of spreading Christianity around the world and enforcing its practice at any cost. We don’t see him preaching what makes Christianity a fulfilling faith experience; instead, we see him wielding the religion as a tool of power. He uses it to rule over the early Cebuanos through the image of Señor Sto. Niño, after their sickly children miraculously recovered. He also punishes his crew for what he perceived as sins during the expedition, including sodomy and mutiny.

We also see his hypocrisy, such as when he expressed remorse for punishing a crew member but not for the natives of Malacca whom his crew killed, their lifeless bodies left on the ground as if decorations of his conquest. He even tried, unsuccessfully, to pressure the ship’s priest to reveal confessions from rebelling members.

It’s not to say that Magellan is the only cunning person in power, but also Humabon (Ronnie Lazaro), who detests the Spaniards’ enforcement of customs that destroyed their own. He brings up a myth of a certain datu named Lapulapu, resistant to Magellan’s conversion, even going so far as to claim he is a “wakwak” (vampiric, bird-like creature) to discourage Magellan from pursuing further.

Of course, Magellan, who had to endure the ills of traveling through the Pacific, is not going to give up easily, bringing his crew to use force in what he describes as a potential “phantom.” We don’t see how the battle turns out except for scenes of natives retreating, and an empty house where a ghost of Magellan’s wife, Beatriz (Ângela Azevedo), sits idly awaiting her husband’s doom. She died in Seville the same year Magellan was killed in 1521.

Throughout this struggle between the two parties, Diaz portrays Magellan and Humabon as strategic players in a chess match. The key difference is that Magellan manipulates for power, while Humabon schemes for the survival of his community.

Though Magellan may have lost the battle, the film suggests his corruption planted the seeds of what our political climate would become, dating back centuries.

In a way, Diaz depicts Enrique as a representative of the Filipino today, someone who knows how to blend into a new culture for survival, yet yearns for eventual freedom in what might be an endless battle – fighting against past colonizers and current leaders.

Such depictions are nothing new for Diaz, who often uses sociopolitical storytelling to illustrate society’s ills. His previous film, “Phantosmia,” which is two hours longer than “Magellan,” explores the cycle of violence through the perspectives of a former military officer (also played by Lazaro) and an almost-mute abused woman exploited for her pale beauty (Janine Gutierrez).

Shifting from his usual black-and-white cinematography, the muted colors of “Magellan” help make this historical chapter feel like a timely, relevant tale for audiences today. The distinct camera angles and wide shots position viewers as witnesses to Diaz’s interpretation of events.

The film also benefits from strong performances. Highlights include García Bernal bringing subtlety and depth to Magellan, resisting the caricatured teleserye villain we might expect of our former colonizer. Babon, meanwhile, delivers a nuanced take on Enrique, conveying the weight of an enslaved man grappling with whether he was bound to his master for eternity.

Even with her short screentime, Azevedo lights up the screen with her innocent portrayal of Beatriz, which helps show Magellan’s human side. Hazel Orencio also shines as Humabon’s wife, Hara Humamay, who hopes for her daughter’s recovery.

Even with seven years of research behind him, Diaz is aware that his interpretation would draw accusations of historical revision.

In his column, famed historian Ambeth Ocampo defended Diaz’s film, recalling his conversation with Diaz at the Philippine premiere: “You don’t need validation from me. You made a film, not a doctoral dissertation.”

“In retrospect, the film is his conversation with history,” he wrote, “his understanding of it, as presented to viewers.”

What might challenge audiences is the slow pace of the film, which Diaz is known for. Even with its shorter runtime, there are still long takes, likely Diaz’s way of immersing viewers and prompting them to reflect on the characters and the environment around them.

Diaz’s aim for “Magellan” is to reevaluate our history and how its ramifications are still felt today. The film was chosen to represent the Philippines at next year’s Oscars for its artistic and technical excellence, as well as the advantage of being distributed in North American theaters by a company with Oscar-winning entries. Four stars out of five.