Note: This is my final paper for Adv. Literary Theory and Criticism, one of my classes in MA in Literature. October 2015. I'm posting this here as a backup in case I lose my copy and I need a guide in the future.
Literature is the soul of a civilization. It is the collection of dreams, ideas and experiences of a people. It is what separates us from animals. It is an examination of our aspirations, happiness, fears and sadness, ideas and opinions.
As a student of literature, I have learned that to get the most out of a poem, short story, novel, play or film, I must go beyond simple reading and observation. To do this however, I have to answer first the question "how do we fully appreciate a literary piece?" This essay is divided into four sections, namely; what is literature for me; the literary theories and criticism; Heneral Luna: a film review using the poststructuralist approach; and what makes a good literature?
In the first part, I will recall my experiences as a student, reader and an aspiring writer. The second part introduces the literary approaches and how I understood them from listening to class and from supplementary readings. In the third section, I will use the poststructuralist approach to assess the literary value of the film Heneral Luna. Lastly, the essay concludes in an examination of what makes good literature in today's fast-paced lifestyle.
What is literature for me?
I have been writing as a hobby for years. Some of my blog entries include reviews of works from different media such as books, movies, plays, television series, anime, music, art, and video games. I admittedly do not have any idea what most of the literary approaches are, but I have some training in other fields. What little I probably know and the experience I have had in writing must have touched on some of the theories yet I was unaware all this time. When reviewing a book for example, I had a list of elements to look for and I compare the piece to previous books from the same genre.
I have learned through experience that what makes a poem, short story, book, play or film effective is similar to what an audience will look for in mass media and new media such as print, television, radio, animated films and television series, video games, and online articles. Before I learned of the literary approaches, I used the same process and criteria with slight differences. I used different strategies I have picked up in my training as a communication arts student as well as my previous readings from other fields. For example, when I read Carl Jung's Man and His Symbols years before, I thought I would never have a use for it. But I have learned that Jung's studies can be instruments to better understand a literary piece. I will also later learn that there are more methods I can use. In the next section, I will explain how I understand these different literary approaches.
The literary theories and criticism
The conventional way of reading literature is used in Familiar Approaches. The critic uses a social perspective in examining a work by looking at the historical and biographical aspects. This school believes that knowing the writer's environment, the world presented in the work, and the audience for which it was intended will help the reader understand the work better. This approach can be used to supplement and support complex approaches. However, the critic has to have access to previous works of the author and is well informed in history and other related fields to be able to explicate, analyze, and study the work.
The school of Formalism on the other hand provides readers with a way to understand and enjoy a work for its inherent value as a piece of literary art. This approach is also called New Criticism. Most useful when reading poetry, Formalism is not concerned with the effects of the work on the reader but on the work itself. The critic examines how the work creates meaning by looking at the form, diction, and unity. When writing as a formalist, the following do not appear: paraphrasing, intention, biography of the author, and affect. Russian Formalism in particular focuses on poetics and has the following basic assumptions: form rather than content; art as a device of defamiliarization; text as a sum total of its devices; aesthetic of deviation; and literature with its own history.
Meanwhile, the Psychoanalytic Approach examines the human psyche through character analysis. This approach relies on Sigmund Freud's idea of the tripartite psyche (id, ego, and superego) and is elaborated later by other thinkers like Carl Jung, Northrop Frye, and Jacques Lacan. The important features of a work to look for when using this approach are the conflicts, characters, dreams and symbols. Dreams in particular are the language of the unconscious. It has meaningful symbolic presentations. Jung's archetypal criticism is built upon the assumption that the unconscious mind powerfully directs much of our behavior. These archetypes (the shadow, anima/animus, persona, self, and other archetypes) can be approached in dreams, ritual and literature. A critic will look for what is commonly found in stories because these archetypes are said to be innate, universal and hereditary. Frye advanced the study of archetypes by claiming all text are part of the central unifying myth. Furthermore, he lists four mythos in which most Western literature can be classified; these are spring (comedy), summer (romance), autumn (tragedy), and winter (irony and satire). Lacan focused on the unconscious as a center of one's being and claimed that it is structured like language. The three stages of human development (imaginary, symbolic, and real) can be used for character analysis.
Another approach called Reader's Response highlights the readers' relationship to the text. This school claims that there is no one true interpretation of a piece. There is no wrong or right answer but a variety of readings that grow out of individual experiences and feelings. From this perspective, the critic assumes that the meaning of the text is created by its two shapers (transactional) and that the expectations of the readers differ based on their background (horizon of expectations).
A more radical approach called Structuralism analyzes binary oppositions, recurrences and differences. This theory is based on the assumption that there is structure in every text or "grammar of literature." Literary texts are not separate from a larger structure and therefore everything that is written is governed by specific rules. Its pioneer Ferdinand de Saussure introduced the langue (collective grammar/competence/system of language) and parole (individual speech/performance/individual realization of the system in actual instances of language). He also proposed a closer study of signs (semiotics). These signs are composed of the union of the signifier (sequence of sounds or marks on a page) and signified (concept or meaning). Words therefore are not symbols which correspond to referents but are signs which are made up of the said parts. This idea is furthered by poststructuralism and deconstruction.
Poststructuralists claim the "death of the writer" and the "birth of the reader" in creating the meaning of texts. It assumes that texts are "fluid, dynamic entities that are given new life with repeated readings and through interactions with other texts, thereby providing an ongoing plurality of meanings." This is opposed to the Structuralist idea that there is only one structure or meaning of a text. Deconstructionists further this idea by stating that meaning is essentially undecidable. Instead of looking for structure, then, deconstruction looks for those places where texts contradict, and thereby deconstruct, themselves. Instead of showing how the conventions of a text work, it shows how they falter. This is based on Jacques Derrida's elaboration of Saussure's "sign." Derrida went a step further, stating that any given signifier may point to several different signifieds. These ongoing plays of signifiers that never come to rest produce illusory effects of meanings. When doing a deconstructive analysis, the critic locates the binary opposition and the hierarchy, reverses the hierarchy of the binary oppositions and reasserts that there is no one interpretation of text because the second reading can be replaced by another and so on. Poststructuralism and deconstruction are sometimes used interchangeably.
Structuralist Narratology furthered the idea of a structural pattern found in texts by examining the oppositions which create meaning. Claude Levi-Strauss studied the units of myths (mythemes) while A.J. Greimas argued for a universal grammar of narrative. Greimas listed six roles present in texts. These are subject/object, sender/receiver, and helper opponent. Furthermore he found three basic patterns which recur in all narrative; desire/search/aim, communication, and auxiliary support/hindrance. Similarly, Gerard Genette divided the narrative into three levels; story (tense), discourse (mood), and narration (void). The most well-known however are Vladimir Propp's and Tzvetan Todorov's versions of theory of narrative. Propp classified characters into seven types (hero, villain, donor/mentor, helper, princess, dispatcher, and false hero) and the narrative structure into six stages (preparation, complication, transference, struggle, return, and recognition). Todorov's five stages of the narrative are quite similar to Propp's. The five stages are the following: (1) a state of equilibrium at the outset; (2) disruption of the equilibrium; (3) recognition of the disruption; (4) attempt to repair the disruption; and (5) reinstatement of the equilibrium.
When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto, its implications were felt in literature as well. Marxist criticism uses the following fundamentals of Marxist thought: critique of capitalist society; adaptation of Hegelian dialectic (history develops as a struggle between contradictions that are eventually synthesized); materialistic conception of history; the division of labor; Marx's conception of ideology that the ruling class represent its own interests as the interest of the people as a whole; and Marx's economic views that economic exploitation is a part of the dialectic process. When applied to literature, Marxism works to reveal the internal contradictions in the text. It is different to Formalism because for Marxists, literature is not an aesthetic object but a reflection of socioeconomic relations. It is similar to Structuralism but instead of just looking at the systems within the text, Marxism also includes the text's historical context and condition. The text will reveal if it supports the status quo or depicts its negative aspects. The point of view therefore can change the ideology.
A similarly radical approach, Feminism explores the treatment of women (first wave), the female writers and women's place in history (second wave) and the exploration of the female experience in art and literature (third wave). The first wave was mainly concerned with the struggle to resist patriarchy by comparing the material disadvantages of women from men. The second wave is concerned with the discovery and exploration of a canon of literature written by women. Finally, the third wave seeks to escape the double standard imposed on women.
Gay Theory and Criticism is similar to Feminism but because previous constructions of sexuality are inadequate, this approach was made. Likewise, Lesbian Feminist Theory focuses on gender issues and oppression. It differentiates sex from gender by stating that there is a set of attributes which are necessary to its identity and function. Queer Theory also explores the concept of gender which claims that it is also socially constructed.
Postcolonialism's concern in literature is to reclaim spaces and places, assert cultural integrity, and revise history. Some of its basic assumptions are the following: natives see themselves as inferior and therefore practice mimicry; practice of "othering"; colonizers in the process also become the colonized; and hybridity or syncretism. A critic looks for resistant descriptions, appropriation of the colonizer's language and the reworking of colonial art-forms. Postcolonialism looks at the cultural overlaps and hybridity.
In the next section, I will apply some of these theories in reviewing Heneral Luna. In particular, I will use the Poststructuralist approach which also utilizes other approaches to find multiple meanings of the text.
Heneral Luna: a film review using the poststructuralist approach
Heneral Luna is a 2015 historical biopic film which covers the beginning of the second phase of the Philippine Revolution until Luna's assassination on June 5, 1899. Antonio Luna at this period in history was the Supreme Chief of the Army under the First Philippine Republic.
At first glance, the movie seems to be sympathetic towards Luna despite his bad temper and colorful language. The portrayal of Luna is similar to the antihero archetype that lacks conventional heroic characteristics. Several historical films and television series covering the Philippine Revolution have been shown in the past. Luna is a slightly different choice of a lead character however from Jose Rizal, Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Aguinaldo who are usually portrayed as noble. Luna's character is respected by some yet feared and resented by those he had humiliated.
One incident in the film wherein he insulted Capt. Pedro Janolino in front of his soldiers for failing to bring reinforcements seemed amusing at the time. This incident however would contribute to the growing hatred and fear against Luna that would eventually lead to his assassination. The way most of the audience reacted to the film (as is seen in comments in social media) seems to point that despite his unconventional behavior, he had gained their sympathy and admiration, a reaction which modern antiheroes elicit. Luna will pay the price for his passionate outbursts however. His intentions may have been for the good of the fledgling army that lacked discipline and despised coordination, but not everyone was happy about it. In this way, not only is Luna an antihero but a tragic hero who, according to Aristotle, “is not eminently good and just, whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty.” Luna is a tragic hero "who commits (wittingly or unwittingly) an injury or great wrong that ultimately led to his misfortune." He is not necessarily a good hero, but a human with flaws. Some of the materials used for the creation of the film were from an earlier script shelved for several years, Nick Joaquin's A Question of Heroes, and Vivencio José's The Rise and Fall of Antonio Luna. Whether the Luna is the movie is historically accurate or slightly exaggerated, he is a character who is a striking contrast to the other figures in the film such as Aguinaldo.
The portrayal of Aguinaldo did not escape my notice as well. Although it was not implied that he was the mastermind behind Luna's assassination, he is depicted as indecisive and biased towards his kababayans from Cavite. I leave the speculations about Luna's death to the experts but Aguinaldo's behavior in the movie shows that even among those fighting for a common cause liked to label themselves as "us and others." When asked if he could do something about Gen. Tomas Mascardo, who refused to obey Luna's orders, Aguinaldo remarked that "… mga kasama ko sila…" (… they were my companions… [from Kawit]). Recall from history as well that the fate of the Katipunan was also plagued by divisive factions. Is the practice of "othering" so ingrained in the Filipino mind that our founding fathers were willing to betray their brothers who are fighting the same cause? Janolino's and Mascardo's insistence on following only Aguinaldo's orders reflect such "us and others" behavior despite the obvious consequences that might result from it.
Luna's character seemed fiery compared to Aguinaldo's cold and distant leadership. I can easily see why the audience would sympathize more with the foul-mouthed general whose goals are transparent than the leader who is surrounded by gossips and lickspittles.
On the second viewing of the movie, I began to see omissions that might or might not have affected the story. The film failed to mention the events prior to the second phase of the Philippine Revolution. Students and historians might recall that Luna was in favor of reform over revolution. When he and his brothers were arrested and jailed, his statements were used against Rizal and the Katipuneros. I do not think that the movie meant to show Luna's change of heart as a journey of redemption however because this was omitted.
Another thing that I noticed is the portrayal of the Americans. I recall during my grade school and high school days that the Americans were usually written in the textbooks as the "rescuers" of the Filipinos from foreign occupation and the bringer of justice and education. In the movie however, they were shown in a different light. Even the lighting and camera angles made them look ominous characters. This prevailing belief that the Americans were benefactors is poignantly challenged in a scene where Joven Hernando had his writing hand shot and his ears rang during an encounter with the Americans. Hernando is a fictional character who was shown interviewing Luna at the start of the film. This is the film's way of saying that the later generations (because Hernando is a young man and therefore represents the Filipino youth and later generations) became "blind, deaf, and ignorant" of the role played by the Americans in the war. The massacre, rape and plunder shown in film are information you do not usually read in school textbooks. Books would usually gloss over this part of history.
Lastly, the viewers should have paid attention to the disclaimer at the beginning of the film. Heneral Luna is not simply a patriotic film but could be said to have shown the "bigger truth" about the nature of Filipinos when faced with an adversary that is nearly impossible to defeat. Initially, the movie could just be about a man who was both a hero with good intentions but could not keep his human imperfections in check. Or it could be questioning Aguinaldo's supposed non-involvement in Luna's death. But when examined closely it also challenges the role the Americans played in history and our readiness to accept fabricated history.
Heneral Luna is the kind of movie that will keep your mind working even after you have watched it---the kind that the Philippine movie industry severely lacks. This then leads us to the final part of the essay.
What makes a good literature?
If there is a lack of provocative movies like Heneral Luna, why did the movie's director had a hard time convincing some producers that the movie will not be boring and hard to market? If we extend that to written literature such as novels, why are books such as Twilight, The Hunger Games, and Precious Hearts Romances have more readership than Classics? What then is good literature?
As a reader of various genres, I cannot give a definite answer to that. Every book or film has a different effect on the audience but for that effect to happen, a reader's background and experiences play a role in that. Some people claim that the Classics are hard to read but when upon close examination, all books (Classics or not) fall into certain categories and these categories represent human truths. It could be love, hatred, vengeance, death, renewal, and others. They tell the same stories but in different ways.
Those who have had more experience with books also place stigma on popular books like those I have mentioned claiming that they are shallow. I disagree with such claims because the emotions and ideas they invoke after all resonate on a lot of readers, hence their popularity. Clinging to the idea that intellectuals should only read the good books (what is a good book anyway but a preference) is not different from the process of "othering." If we extend the poststructuralist ideas to preferences in literature, there is no right or wrong.
As a final note, I would like to point out that efforts are made to bring Classics to the younger audience (book and film remakes, adaptations) and challenges to our conventional ways of looking at different characters are also being done (recent films like Maleficent and Heneral Luna).
References:
Dobie, Anne B.
Theory into Practice: An Introduction to Literary Criticism. USA, 2012, Cengage Learning. International Edition.
Heneral Luna. Dir. Jerrold Tarog. Artikulo Uno Productions, 2014. Film.
Selden, Raman, et al.
A Reader's Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. UK, 2005, Pearson Education Limited. Fifth edition.
