The Metro Manila Film Festival pretty much sums up the state of our ailing local movie industry. Contrary to popular sentiment, it has nothing to do with the audience, their preference, or lack thereof. Such responsibility should fall squarely on all local producers, filmmakers, scriptwriters and other stakeholders whose views are too myopic they’re unable to discern what should and should not if only to ameliorate the sad condition of the said industry.

There is no doubt in my mind that movie-making is business-oriented. However, just because it’s all about money doesn’t mean one has to sacrifice quality in order to pull it off. In the short run, this may make sense considering that without expending effort to come up with creative stories and brilliant production value, any outfit is able to reduce costs on the one hand and in turn, obtain more profits on the other.

In the long-term though, this is counterproductive. At some point, the moviegoing public would lose interest and favor better films produced abroad. And the fact that our industry remains star-driven further makes the situation worse. By getting the likes of Vice Ganda or Vic Sotto to simply star in a trash movie, a film company is able to maximize returns at the expense of quality.

At the end of the day, our stakeholders should be able to understand what movies are for and the societal role they actually play in building communities.

At the explicit level, movies I believe are significant because they reflect or imitate life and in so doing, redefine or even prolong it. Come to think of it, movies are nothing but artistic articulation of non-existent realities that are reminiscent of existing ones. This is why movies, like other art forms, are not expected to influence socio-cultural and political life, although depending on how they are manipulated, may serve as an inspiration to bring about change or help develop a paradigm.

Some movies are made for art’s sake, either as a form of self-expression (or perhaps a discourse on the problematic nature thereof although only a handful artists, I must say, venture into this) or as a means of social critique. Others, however, are crafted solely for their entertainment value.

The problem really is not so much the supposed rigid dichotomy between the two or one being way better than the other, as some arrogant pseudo-intellectual pricks so insist.

Certainly, it is not about which genre is better (because it is up to the individual viewer to decide on that) but which one has “quality” both in terms of cinematic value and how the same resonates with the audience.

The problem with preferring money over the supposed noble intention of movies is that it stifles creativity and at the same time imposes no challenge on stakeholders to think outside the box. This is the reason why compared to our Asian neighbors like Japan and South Korea, our industry has stagnated over the past few decades.

Sadly, even our so-called independent filmmakers couldn’t give their counterparts a competitive fight as their works remain formulaic and even too pedestrian. In the case of Brilliante Mendoza, he simply makes films for critics but doesn’t really bother to connect with the audience as he should.

Hopefully, our stakeholders finally sit down, recalibrate their position and ultimately understand that quality and money can co-exist.