While the US–Israel faction continues fighting with Iranian forces, there is also brewing tension here in the Philippines. No, I’m not referring to China’s aggression toward the Philippine Navy. The war seems to be erupting between local filmmakers and today’s generation of film reviewers. The first shot was fired by Bela Padilla last month when she posted online that she feels sad every time a Filipino puts down a local film. In essence, she feels that this is unpatriotic — and that we should have a sense of pride over our own work.

DAILY TRIBUNE’s resident film critic Stephanie Mayo responded with a piece titled Why You Crying, Bela Padilla? in this paper’s 19 March issue. In her article, Mayo said that Padilla’s statement is “dangerous because it promotes toxic positivity and acts as a shield for mediocrity.”

Last week, director Louie Ignacio lashed out at bashers who review movies without even properly analyzing the films. He pointed out the difference between genuine movie critics who care about cinema and those who never have anything good to say about films. According to Ignacio, the “fake” reviewers are only out to trash movies without even bothering to explain why they don’t like a particular film.

Padilla and Ignacio have both reached a level of respectability in their respective fields, having churned out very decent projects in the past. They have already earned the right to fight back against fellow Filipinos who do nothing but criticize Philippine cinema.

Padilla wrote, directed, produced, and starred in Yung Libro sa Napanood Ko. While technically deficient, its narrative is good – a testament to her talent as a writer and director.

Padilla, however, is still generally acknowledged as an actress of note. Among her best acting performances in film are 10,000 Hours, 100 Tula Para Kay Stella, Meet Me in St. Gallen, On Vodka, Beers and Regrets and Wish You Were the One.

Ignacio initially excelled on television — as a director for musical and variety shows. On the big screen, he has some noteworthy projects: Laut and School Service, in particular. Under his direction, Ignacio even gave master filmmaker Joel Lamangan his first and only acting trophy for School Service. Lamangan, of course, has a long string of awards for best direction. But for School Service, he won the Urian Best Supporting Actor trophy in 2018.

The film critics Padilla and Ignacio are at loggerheads with belong to a new generation of movie reviewers, whose critiques are mostly posted online. Majority of the credible film critics during the good old days of Philippine cinema have already passed on. They don’t have to suffer through bad films anymore in the afterlife.

Among the more prolific film reviewers from the 1960s till the new millennium were Nestor U. Torre, Mario Hernando and Mario Bautista. They’re all gone now.

And so, we have a new batch of film critics who post their reviews on the internet. These young people should consider themselves lucky.

From the 1950s till the advent of social media, film critics wrote with their hands tied. Columnists for broadsheets were unable to write out-and-out negative film reviews because one of the biggest sources of income for newspapers back in the day came from movie advertisements.

Entertainment editors were hesitant to publish negative reviews for fear of angering movie producers who perennially threatened newspapers by pulling out ads whenever their films got a bad write-up from the publication’s columnists and staff writers.

Until the early 1980s, film reviewers only received P150 per article. If their reviews were negative, those articles went unpublished — and so goodbye to their P150. Never mind if they burned the midnight oil just to write a review — on a heavy Olympia typewriter at that!

The more compassionate entertainment editors put the negative reviews on hold — until the film that got trashed by the movie critic was no longer on exhibition. The film reviewer, at least, still managed to collect the P150 writing fee in the end.

Torre, Hernando and Bautista. They were respected names in the world of film criticism in the more recent past. How were they able to come up with intelligent analyses in their respective movie reviews?

For one, they read books — the classics. They were well-versed in world literature. They were familiar with the works of the great European and American writers. They pored over books not as a requirement in school. They read for pleasure.

They also admired the great film masters — from Europe to Hollywood. And yes, even the esteemed Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa.

When this columnist started writing reviews as a student, Torre, Hernando, and Bautista were already the much-feared film reviewers. They were respected because they had integrity and could not be wined and dined. More importantly, they had a following because — unlike film reviewers from academe, whose works were more sleep-inducing than a dose of Valium 10mg — Torre, Hernando and Bautista wrote in a journalistic manner. Their pieces were unpretentious and easy to digest – very readable.

Although I looked up to them, I decided to develop my own writing style. Through the decades, I realized that the fairest way to review even a bad film is to point out anything good in it. That was also my way of getting around the entertainment editor so that my review did not come out completely negative.

For instance, I reviewed Meet, Greet & Bye for this paper. I did not like the way the film unfolded on the screen, but I highlighted the outstanding performances of the cast members led by Maricel Soriano, Piolo Pascual, and Joshua Garcia. To me, every film has its saving grace. In Meet, Greet & Bye, it was the effervescent presence of the cast members that made the film still worth watching.