Creation is superior to interpretation
KING OF COMEDY, Dolphy. INQUIRER PHOTO
The question of who should be named our next National Artist for Film continues to be ardently discussed in movie circles, especially now that not just legislators but also some industry leaders and even a couple of bishops have weighed in on the issue.
Some respondents have expressed appreciation for our recent “First Things First” article that tried to place the issue in a clarifying context, but some aspects of the discussion continue to remain muddled and contentious, so we hope that this follow-up piece will be of additional help.
We bring to the discussion our hopefully helpful “voice of experience,” which comes from around a decade of hands-on work as a member of panels that have chosen three batches of National Artists. In that capacity, we have seen both the strengths and the weaknesses of the selection process at close range, and indeed our observations have led to some (not enough) reforms that have been adopted.
Purpose
However, the purpose of this piece is not to detail those strengths, weaknesses and reforms, but to focus on the even more contentious issue of who “deserves” the National Artist award. To date, the names cited tend to be those of veteran actors, like Dolphy, Nora Aunor, Vilma Santos and Eddie Garcia.
But, if you look at the names of artists who have actually been proclaimed National Artists for Film, you have Lamberto V. Avellana, Gerry de Leon, Lino Brocka, Ishmael Bernal and Fernando Poe Jr.—filmmakers, one and all. Yes, FPJ was an iconic action-drama star, but he was mainly cited for the movies he wrote, directed and produced.
What does this tell us about the nature of the National Artist awards? In private discussions, we have pointed out that, in the hierarchy of relative merit and achievement in the arts all over the world, “creation is superior to interpretation.” By this, we mean that artists who write and direct great scripts and films do essentially more valuable work than the actors who interpret material that other artists have created.
Many we’ve talked to have urged us to make this line of discussion public, to be of help to more people, so that’s what we’re doing now. Others scoff at this delimiting distinction as an aspersion on performing and “interpreting” talents. It is certainly not our intention to denigrate their achievement; we simply want to clarify further the ongoing discussion.
Complexities
Basically, due to the many complexities involved, it’s much more difficult to create an entire full-length film than it is to portray one great role in it. So, is it therefore impossible for an actor to become a National Artist? No, but his body of work needs to be singularly exceptional.
That’s another issue that needs to be brought out to clarify the ongoing debate, and to keep it from becoming too subjective and emotional: we need to accept the fact that in the commercial filmmaking system that operates in the local mainstream movie industry, popularity often holds sway over quality, and even estimable actors have done less than exceptional work due to the popular and populist nature of the local movie industry.
For instance, Nora was great in “Bona,” but she also starred in “My Blue Hawaii” and “Guy and Pip.” Now, one of the tenets of a “lifetime achievement” award like the National Artist honor is consistency of achievement. In a populist industry, that consistency is difficult to come by, so that’s one point against popular stars winning the top honor.
That sounds snobbish, but it isn’t meant to be. It’s just the articulation of a reality, that popular stars have already been rewarded for their work with their popularity (and all the material and psychic blessings that it entails).
The National Artist Award, on the other hand, seeks to honor and reward those creative artists who have had to struggle consistently to achieve great art, despite the many limitations and psychic dilutions that could have persuaded them to compromise (as many popular artists have done) and settle for the usual, easier and more financially rewarding stuff—and fluff.
We’re bringing in these subsidiary issues now to show how complicated the National Artist discussion can become. Less than that would be a knee-jerk response, and another facile compromise.
