THE BAD IN EVERY GOOD
For a 2003 film, The Crime of Padre Amaro’s plot is
not as controversial as it seems. Most, if not all, are already aware that
there are fortuitous events that even the Church itself cannot wholly control
because a human being is subject to error and failure.
The presentation of the plot was
plain and ordinary. Even the sex scenes of the priest and a young girl hardly
gave more life to the film. This is primarily because it was predictable and
soap opera-like. Though the film tries to become satiric, its melodramatic
element devours the wholeness of the film. It pleases to ones senses but fails
to trigger intellectual intervention for its interpretation.
It had a lot of subplots. It had too
much subplots that the good ones compromised with the main plot. Like for
example, the case of Fr. Natilo, the excommunicated priest because he was
allegedly accused to have been involved and tolerated the guerillas in his
mission area. It would’ve been a good angle and source of conflict, yet it
wasn’t stressed or utilized in an efficient manner at all. Also, the film’s arrangement
of subplots resulted to the lack of its sense of conflict.
However, if viewed in a larger
scale, the film suggests the complexity of the good and the bad. Though one
could see it as a form of hypocrisy, yet the film portrays the sincerity of the
character’s motive in showing their goodness. Take in for example, Fr. Benito.
He wanted to build a hospital for the village, though he makes love with his
helper. Fr. Amaro sincerely wants to extend help to the villagers, though he
also violated his vow of celibacy.
The characters of the film were
symbolisms of the world’s ugly truth. Obviously, Fr. Amaro represented all
those people who’ll do everything to keep his/her job and keep his/her image as
clean as possible. Amelia, on the other hand, are those who know how it is to
have faith and how to love yet used their knowing in the ill side of things.
Fr. Benito and Gythsemani are those who know the truth yet they cannot reveal
it because they are paralyzed by circumstances. Dionesia, the wicked and creepy
witch-like woman, symbolized all those hypocrites in their faith.
Nevertheless, I find the film
irritatingly factual in its criticism to the church. It’s irritating because
its style was dull and a cliché already, there could have been better ways to
portray the film’s theme. It’s factual not because it is based upon a true
story, but factual in the sense that these kinds of controversies do exist.
As
one of the film’s subplots, I am against yet open to the idea of abortion. I do
not favor the option of abortion yet I understand those who consider it as one.
As rational beings, I know that they decided to choose considering abortion
because they have reasons. Also, we differ in culture and religion. I respect
the belief of others. Those who have done abortion are all forgivable if only
they are sincerely sorry for their unjustifiable action of taking away an
innocent life. In the context of family planning and contraception, I do not
see it as a form of abortion. Life begins once the egg and sperm cells unite.
Abortion is committed once you destroy it and not the act of stopping it from
happening.
Open-mindedness matters. Once you
are embraced with the fact of seeing things in one point of view, you become
subject to giving ill criticism.
No comments:
Post a Comment