Heneral Luna: its sensationalism of history; portraying Luna as this larger than life character,while demonizing Aguinaldo

by Bien Canonizado

Firstly,let me say that I am extremely happy that the recent Luna biographical picture has broken even in the box office recounting its two million Dollar budget.

This is very important,it shows that the general public can appreciate movies other than the shallow garbage star cinema turns out.

It also means that future film producers will be encouraged to invest in historical films;and by accident,Luna the film has also resurrected the historical film genre long thought to be dead.
In my humble opinion,what made the movie successful was its ability to resonate with people's discontentment with the current political system.

Also,it portrayed history using a style of story-telling similar to the 1930s pulp-fiction brand of action and grit.

Think of movies like Captain Blood,The four feathers,and the first magnificent seven picture...
My only real problem with the film was its sensationalism of history;portraying Luna as this larger than life character,while demonizing Aguinaldo.

This has resulted in a sudden spike in the number of instant Wikipedia and internet historians over night who calls Aguinaldo a traitor.

I think the film was overly harsh on Aguinaldo for the following reasons:

1). Painting Aguinaldo as an ineffective leader who was weak and indecisive.
Not true since actual accounts of the time,specially those contemporary accounts by Generals Pantalion Garcia,Mariano Llanera,and Emilio Jacinto all point to Aguinaldo as a very competent military commander from 1896-1898...

He won several battles,specially in the southern theater of operations.
He also wasn't a 'weak leader' Aguinaldo ordered several field executions(albeit he preferred exile as a means of discipline).

2). The film imposes 21st century moral judgment on 19th century problems;Ok folks,Political correctness and the uniform code of military justice had not been invented yet.

The Geneva convention had not been ratified;their were no formalized rules of war. War was dirty,Aguinaldo had to make several tough decisions,including not investigating and punishing Luna's killers within the Cawit battalion.
Understand this,the revolutionary army of 1896-1901 was not a true army in the traditional western sense;instead think of it as a rabble of untrained and undisciplined peasants lead by a few officers who literally had to whip their men into obeying orders.

Their was no concept of command responsibility as understood now; the men were loyal not to the army as a whole,but rather to their individual generals who spent their own money to equip them.

Think of it more like the Mongol horde,with Aguinaldo being Khan,and the revolutionary army as a whole being his 'Tumen'.

A Tumen is a very loose body of men lead by a war-lord called a Tumetu.

These are Chinese/Mongolian terms most suited to the revolutionary army. Unlike the Americans,our forces did not have a "general staff" which functioned properly,instead the army often stole and foraged for its supplies. The position of army quarter-master was a kin to head thief,who used open banditry to provision the standing army.
After Luna's assassination by individuals within the Cawit battalion,the facts did not reach Aguinaldo who himself was on the run.

Also,because of difficulties in communication,it was several days until Aguinaldo learned of the facts,all he had to work was with rumors.

What people now do not understand was that,communications and command-structure were very difficult then.
It took several days and weeks for orders to get relayed;often field commanders were given much autonomy to do as they pleased because the situation on the ground was very fluid.



When a theater commander issued orders via horse-currier(the telegraph was extremely unreliable) he did not know if they would be followed...

And consider,if Aguinaldo had punished the Cawit battalion in its entirety,a great portion of the southern soldiers would have deserted on mass.

3). The movie did not show the Cawit battalion's true motives in having Luna killed. You see Luna in his haste to evacuate military supplies and personnel,sequestered and seized a train of fleeing civilians who consequently dependents of the Cawit battalion.

Luna made the mistake of whipping mothers,daughters,and children in front of their own husbands in order to clear the train of cargo space.

This was probably necessary to preserve the army's baggage train,but was not politically astute,because members of the southern companies held a very serious grudge against him.

4). The movie used historical accounts from president Quezon written in the 1930s,as opposed to those by Teodoro Agoncillo which were written earlier.

Remember,Quezon had a very clear reason to demonize Aguinaldo because they were political opponents in the 1935 elections...

Agoncillo,being an unassociated third party was more objective.

I know that many of you have already made up their minds concerning Aguinaldo,however I do ask that you read these scholarly articles and proceed with an open mind... Before commenting,I humbly ask that you first read the supporting documents/links included with this post so that we may have an informed exchange

http://iwriteasiwrite.tumblr.com/post/4041919704/aguinaldo-in-perspective