Two recent films exhibited locally tackle the point.
Michel Gondry’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is the story of two lovers, played effectively by Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet, who decide to erase each other from their memories after a tumultuous breakup. They’re able to do this because of new technology offered by company called Lacuna. "Well, technically, the procedure itself is brain-damage," explains its senior doctor Howard Mierzwiak (played by The Full Monty alumni Tom Wilkinson), "but on a par with a heavy night of drinking."
During the operation (via a contraption that is more Dr. Cyclops than any kitchen utensil of Dr. Lecter), Joel (Carrey) decides to call it off, whisking Clementine (Winslet) or at least his concept of her to places in his mind where she doesn’t normally figure, to preserve her memory. As expected from a script by Charlie Kaufman, things tend to get a bit weird but the science fiction, drama and humor are all handled well, concluding on an ambiguously happy ending.
The documentary Imelda by Ramona Diaz ends on a similar note with only its beleaguered star left really smiling. Obviously deluded and seduced by her own myth, the former First Lady traipses around her mansions filled with mementoes like shrines to her past glories or riding around her private bus amidst the squalor of the streets giving away photographs of herself. Despite the fawning rictus one imagines on Diaz’s face as she’s escorting her subject, it is clear that no amount of editing can hide the fact of those widowed and orphaned by martial law, the lifeless body of Ninoy Aquino on the tarmac and the crowds at the first EDSA.
Not really an impressive film, it has its merits that are solely due to Mrs. Marcos herself. She is a fascinating character because of the fact that she is unable to see herself and her husband’s legacy but only through the kindest filters, as if a highlight reel of all those propaganda films they commissioned in the ‘70s were continually playing in the theatre of her own skull. To her credit, she seems genuinely happy at the close of the film.
So, is memory that important? There’s a loop of Joel and Clementine running across the white sands of the beach where they first met before the end credits of the film. According to Gondry, he put it there to signify that the two will repeat the same mistakes again and again. Without memory, they will never truly grow out of love but neither will they progress in their relationship. It’s a sour denouement swallowed easily only because of the humor of the situations.
But we really don’t need a plot device straight out of Philip K. Dick novel to realize this: As shown in Imelda, all you need is an ego much larger than vast amounts of cash stashed in Swiss bank accounts. Why hope for the availability of a technology to do a job we humans are well equipped to do on our own?
Exercise of this selective memory is by no means exclusive to the affluent as evidenced by our national penchant to elect the same faces into office every election. In absence of a history (or having a spotted one), we choose to accept invented ones, not unlike reading travel brochures of magical la-la lands where we fill with our wishes the omissions of the photographs. Thus, the Marcoses are now chic; unfashionable as Imelda was after EDSA 1, she’s now accepted as charming as symbolic royalty. It makes one shudder to know that some Filipinos even consider the martial law period as halcyon days.
For the most part, legacies are only as good as the quality of the print in your campaign flyer: It doesn’t matter if the dogs have lived longer than the congressman in your district – their PR will make sure they belong there. Without proper remembrance, who can dispute them?
Back in cinema, who’s to say which of the stories told under the ruined gate of Rashomon are true? In the absence of truth, do we just choose the convenient version? Without proper remembrance, we are none the wiser.
Without truth, we are doomed to repeat our mistakes. And no matter how many happy endings you tack on it will never change that fact.
As film critic Ramon De Veyra pointed out, details like the use of single source lighting for most of the "memory" sequences ground itself on a precious memory of Joel’s (of Clementine) repeatedly shining a flashlight on him on their first "adventure" breaking into a beachside house. Made more poignant for the fact that it’s also the setting when she finally bids farewell before being erased from his mind. It’s one of many moments that make it touching film that even managed to draw out a tear from a jaded filmmaker’s eye.
Imelda is a failure in the fact that it didn’t show its subject enough. For all her faults, Mrs. Marcos is undeniably a star with a charisma that could charm staunch opponents like Lino Brocka and world leaders with ease. The best moments in the film is when she just lets it rip and says whatever’s on her mind, and it’s a pity when the camera strays from her. Hopefully, the DVD will include more of her and her thoughts.
One glaring oversight though would be the identity of her would-be assassin. Who was this man and what were his motives? He was probably killed but it is of interest if he was ever given a trial or incarcerated. It seems that given the footage of him attacking Mrs. Marcos with an "ugly" bolo was repeated several times it would have registered in the filmmaker’s head to ask these questions.
Still entertaining, one has to admit.