The Theory of Memory and Mourning

About Us But Not About Us Film Review

(4.5 stars out of 5)

By L. S. Mendizabal

(Trigger warning: mention of suicide, abuse)

Never have I been so glad to go into a movie blind with Jun Robles Lana’s latest cinematic offering. Apart from learning from social media and the stunning film poster that About Us But Not About Us is the acclaimed writer and director’s most autobiographical work to date, I honestly had no clue what it was really about. And I wouldn’t have it any other way, which is why I will try my best to similarly not spoil the movie for anybody with this review. I am in no way teasing an awfully shocking twist ending (there isn’t), but I do feel that the complete journey of speculation, introspection and emotional release About Us walks us through is a gift that must be earned.

Truth is, if you haven’t at least once fallen in love; or lost someone to death, or life, or time; or nursed a broken heart, and a pretty banged up one too, perhaps you wouldn’t be able to appreciate the film as much. About Us is not something you watch just for the plot. It does, however, have an intriguing opening premise: Gay, middle-aged literature professor, Eric (Romnick Sarmenta), meets his younger student, Lance (Elijah Canlas), at a restaurant which the former frequented with his longtime partner and fellow professor, Marcus, whom we never see in the movie (well, sort of). We soon learn that Marcus has recently died by taking his own life and that the close friendship between Eric and Lance have sent tongues wagging at the university department. Still visibly reeling from losing Marcus, Eric is looking forward to catching up with Lance, who, meanwhile, is on a mission to find out if he was the cause of Marcus’s suicide. And since the restaurant strictly observes a 90-minute meal rule in keeping with post-pandemic protocol, Eric and Lance have only 90 minutes to talk about everything—their thoughts, feelings, memories of Marcus, and all the secrets and all the lies.

Two men at a table. And a ghost. When it comes down to it, they are whom About Us is really all about. So how does an hour and a half of dialogue between two seated characters in a single location manage to turn into a more nuanced, psychologically and emotionally gripping cinematic experience?

For starters, Lana’s writing, at its most honest, sober and philosophical, makes for a pretty robust foundation. To survive grief and depression, he reportedly wrote About Us—“part-fiction and part-confessional,” he calls it—in three straight days. And it is nothing short of a masterpiece. All the aesthetic and creative choices that make Eric, Lance and even Marcus more distinct, multidimensional characters seem deliberate yet natural. For instance, Eric’s red Volkswagen Beetle, the jingling bell and keys fastened to his belt and his palpable disgust upon discovering Lance’s pornographic Twitter alter account attest not only to his age but also to his attachment, allegiance more so, to the past. For the longest time, his source of comfort and familiarity had been Marcus, this brilliant writer (touted as “the Nick Joaquin of his generation”) but cynical, almost uncaring lover; whereas Lance, this young aspiring writer who looks to him for mentorship and guidance, and who isn’t afraid to be vulnerable with him (“I only like myself when I’m with you”) breaks the monotony of his life, gives him purpose, excites him.

Lance is forbidden waters Eric probably wouldn’t mind wading in from time to time, but he does keep his distance just enough to avoid getting fired from his teaching post. Nevertheless, the odd patriarchal role he assumes—both charitable and controlling, forcing his own beliefs and decisions on Lance—reveals his true motive, which, whatever it may be, is not totally unselfish. And neither is Lance’s. With a first name like his (Lancelot) and his silver motorcycle helmet, it’s easy to fall for the knightly exterior, winning smile and bright-eyed, innocent demeanor. Then again, Lancelot in Arthurian legend is known for his loyalty as well as treachery. Befittingly, Lance is at once fragile and callous, naïve and devious.

And yet, this story is not about good versus evil; it has more grays than black-and-whites. Lana’s manipulation of angles, blocking, and light and shadow demonstrates the characters’ moral ambiguity and gradual shift in power dynamics. He also borrows elements from theatre, notably in the scenes wherein Eric and Lance delve into their respective histories with Marcus. Despite the film’s minimal budget, Lana is able to create multilayered, conflicted, and conflicting, characters whose struggle he orchestrates with clever precision in a single, static set. Some have called About Us “a masterclass on acting.” I see it, firstly, as a masterclass on writing.

WATCH: Official “About Us But Not About Us” movie trailer

Speaking of acting, the script—constantly switching between dalliance and deceit, between English and Filipino, and peppered with references to Daft Punk, Tennessee Williams and many other literary figures—wouldn’t have been as compelling, and might’ve even sounded pretentious, if it did not have the perfect actors to play the two main roles. And perfect, indeed, they are. Sarmenta, particularly, conveys complex emotions through subtlety—a sidelong glance, a clenching of the jaw, a quiver of the lip, the cadence with which he delivers his lines. With a quiet yet commanding intensity, Eric ceases to be a character, transforming into someone I feel I know. More than a movie star, Sarmenta is a writer’s actor, a true empath, an utterly transfixing cinematic presence. Canlas, on the other hand, holds his own, exuding youthful innocence even as he seduces. Lance is the one truly in control of the conversation, luring Eric into his tricks and traps. And this is all executed by Canlas with a self-possession not many actors his age are capable of learning.

In the final act, the tension between the two characters reaches a deafening crescendo, and I’m convinced that Eric is going to kill Lance by running him over with his Beetle. But I remind myself that About Us is not that type of movie. And perhaps it’s fair to say that it’s a very specific type of movie that’s not for everyone. After all, it is essentially a 90-minute negotiation between two people haunted by memories of a man, but memories really of themselves, and above all, memories of the filmmaker himself. Just as Lana has entrusted Filipino audiences with his most beloved characters, Rene (Bwakaw), Marilou (Mga Kwentong Barbero) and Dharna (Big Night!), along with their individual journeys, he now entrusts us with his burden of pain and secrecy. Although marketed as a psychological drama/thriller—and I guarantee that it will keep you on the edge of your seat until the credits roll—About Us is, at its core, a deeply personal, philosophical story about love, which is probably life’s greatest conundrum, and its twin, loss, life’s absolute certainty.

Lana sums it up cleanly when Eric says, “As you grow older, you’ll realize that most of our memories are false. Or worse, they’re just lies we tell ourselves.” We do tend to remember our loves and losses differently from person to person, don’t we? When a relationship ends, our memories of it are hardly ever untainted by the happiness or hurt we associate with the one we shared that relationship with. Some of us can’t grapple with the possibility that our loved ones might’ve abused us, mistaking what they did for “tough love,” a “test of one’s faith” or whatever euphemism we could find to justify staying in such toxic spaces. And then, there’s also the possibility of our own abuse of our loved ones—do we take accountability for our actions, do we simply forget them or do we tell others (but mostly ourselves) lies in a desperate bid for sympathy? When artists create, how much of themselves do they put into their work? Do they present idealized versions of themselves or do they show their inner demons and traumas, endured or perpetrated?

These are just some of the questions About Us confronts in all of their perplexity, reflexivity and ugliness. With its exploration of such intellectual and emotional depths, while remaining anchored to honest self-reflection, About Us is Lana’s generous gift of healing not only to himself but to the audience as well, the sort of healing that is not necessarily pleasant, comforting or kind. And in the sense that not all may be willing to reciprocate Lana’s generosity by asking themselves the hard questions, the film really is about all of us, but not quite.About Us But Not About Us won “Best Film” at the 26th Tallinn Black Nights Film Festival in Estonia in November 2022. It is one of the eight official entries to the first ever Metro Manila Summer Film Festival and will be screening in cinemas nationwide starting tomorrow, April 8. #

‘Aswang’ Documentary Review: Do Not Dare Look Away

By L.S. Mendizabal

(Trigger warning: Murders, mutilation of corpses)

Pumarito ka. Bahala ka, kukunin ka ng aswang diyan! (Come here, or else the aswang will get you!)” is a threat often directed at Filipino children by their mothers. In fact, you can’t be Filipino without having heard it at least once in your life. For as early as in childhood, we are taught to fear creatures we’ve only seen in nightmares triggered by bedtime stories told by our Lolas.

In Philippine folklore, an “aswang” is a shape-shifting monster that roams in the night to prey on people or animals for survival. They may take a human form during the day. The concept of “monster” was first introduced to us in the 16th century by the Spanish to demonize animist shamans, known as “babaylan” and “asog,” in order to persuade Filipino natives to abandon their “anitos” (nature, ancestor spirits) and convert to Roman Catholicism—a colonizing tactic that proved to be effective from Luzon to Northern Mindanao.

In the early 1950s, seeing that Filipinos continued to be superstitious, the Central Intelligence Agency weaponized folklore against the Hukbong Bayan Laban sa Hapon (Hukbalahap), an army of mostly local peasants who opposed US intervention in the country following our victory over the Japanese in World War II. The CIA trained the Philippine Army to butcher and puncture holes in the dead bodies of kidnapped Huk fighters to make them look like they were bitten and killed by an aswang. They would then pile these carcasses on the roadside where the townspeople could see them, spreading fear and terror in the countryside. Soon enough, people stopped sympathizing with and giving support to the Huks, frightened that the aswang might get them, too.

Fast forward to a post-Duterte Philippines wherein the sight of splayed corpses has become as common as of the huddled living bodies of beggars in the streets. Under the harsh, flickering streetlights, it’s difficult to tell the dead and the living apart. This is one of many disturbing images you may encounter in Alyx Ayn Arumpac’s Aswang. The documentary, which premiered online and streamed for free for a limited period last weekend, chronicles the first two years of President Rodrigo Duterte’s campaign on illegal drugs. “Oplan Tokhang” authorized the Philippine National Police to conduct a door-to-door manhunt of drug dealers and/or users. According to human rights groups, Tokhang has killed an estimated 30,000 Filipinos, most of whom were suspected small-time drug offenders without any actual charges filed against them. A pattern emerged of eerily identical police reports across cases: They were killed in a “neutralization” because they fought back (“nanlaban”) with a gun, which was the same rusty .38 caliber pistol repeatedly found along with packets of methamphetamine (“shabu”) near the bloodied corpses. When children and innocent people died during operations, PNP would call them “collateral damage.” Encouraged by Duterte himself, there were also vigilante killings too many to count. Some were gunned down by unidentified riding-in-tandem suspects, while some ended up as dead bodies wrapped in duct tape, maimed or accessorized with a piece of cardboard bearing the words, “Pusher ako, huwag tularan” (I’m a drug pusher, do not emulate). Almost all the dead casualties shared one thing in common: they were poor. Virtually no large-scale drug lord suffered the same fate they did.

And for a while, it was somehow tempting to call it “fate.” Filipinos were being desensitized to the sheer number of drug-related extrajudicial killings (a thousand a month, according to the film). “Nanlaban” jokes and memes circulated on Facebook and news of slain Tokhang victims were no longer news as their names and faces were reduced to figures in a death toll that saw no end.

As much as Aswang captures the real horrors and gore of the drug war, so has it shown effectively the abnormal “sense of normal” in the slums of Manila as residents deal with Tokhang on the daily. Fearing for their lives has become part of their routine along with making sure they have something to eat or slippers on their feet. This biting everyday reality is highlighted by Arumpac’s storytelling unlike that of any documentary I’ve ever seen. Outlined by poetic narration with an ominous tone that sounds like a legitimately hair-raising ghost story, Aswang transports the audience, whether they like it or not, from previously seeing Tokhang exclusively on the news to the actual scenes of the crime and funerals through the eyes of four main individuals: a nightcrawler photojournalist and dear family friend, Ciriaco Santiago III (“Brother Jun” to many), a funeral parlor operator, a street kid and an unnamed woman.

Along with other nightcrawlers, Bro. Jun waits for calls or texts alerting them of Tokhang killings all over Manila’s nooks and crannies. What sets him apart from the others, perhaps motivated by his mission as Redemptorist Brother, is that he speaks to the families of the murdered victims to not only obtain information but to comfort them. In fact, Bro. Jun rarely speaks throughout the film. Most of the time, he’s just listening, his brows furrowed with visible concern and empathy. It’s as if the bereaved are confessing to him not their own transgressions but those committed against them by the state. One particular scene that really struck me is when he consoles a middle-aged man whose brother was just killed not far from his house. “Kay Duterte ako pero mali ang ginawa nila sa kapatid ko” (I am for Duterte but what they did to my brother was wrong), he says to Bro. Jun in between sobs. Meanwhile, a mother tells the story of how her teenage son went out with friends and never came home. His corpse later surfaced in a mortuary. “Just because Duterte gave [cops] the right to kill, some of them take advantage because they know there won’t be consequences,” she angrily says in Filipino before wailing in pain while showing Bro. Jun photos of her son smiling in selfies and then laying pale and lifeless at the morgue.

The Eusebio Funeral Services is a setting in the film that becomes as familiar as the blood-soaked alleys of the city. Its operator is an old man who gives the impression of being seasoned in his profession. And yet, nothing has prepared him for the burden of accommodating at least five cadavers every night when he was used to only one to two a week. When asked where all the unclaimed bodies go, he casually answers, “mass burial.” We later find out at the local cemetery that “mass burial” is the stacking of corpses in tiny niches they designated for the nameless and kinless. Children pause in their games as they look on at this crude interment, after which a man seals the niche with hollow blocks and wet cement, ready to be smashed open again for the next occupant/s. At night, the same cemetery transforms into a shelter for the homeless whose blanketed bodies resemble those covered in cloth at Eusebio Funeral Services.

Tama na po, may exam pa ako bukas” (Please stop, I still have an exam tomorrow). 17-year-old high school student, Kian Delo Santos, pleaded for his life with these words before police shot him dead in a dark alley near his home. The documentary takes us to this very alley without the foreknowledge that the corpse we see on the screen is in fact Kian’s. At his wake, we meet Jomari, a little boy who looks not older than seven but talks like a grown man. He fondly recalls Kian as a kind friend, short of saying that there was no way he could’ve been involved in drugs. Jomari should know, his parents are both in jail for using and peddling drugs. At a very young age, he knows that the cops are the enemy and that he must run at the first sign of them. Coupled with this wisdom and prematurely heightened sense of self-preservation is Jomari’s innocence, glimpses of which we see when he’s thrilled to try on new clothes and when he plays with his friends. Children in the slums are innocent but not naïve. They play with wild abandon but their exchanges are riddled with expletives, drugs and violence. They even reenact a Tokhang scene where the cops beat up and shoot a victim.

Towards the end of the film, a woman whose face is hidden and identity kept private gives a brief interview where, like the children drawing monsters only they could see in horror movies, she sketches a prison cell she was held in behind a bookshelf. Her interview alternates with shots of the actual secret jail that was uncovered by the press in a police station in Tondo in 2017. “Naghuhugas lang po ako ng pinggan n’ung kinuha nila ‘ko!” (I was just washing the dishes when they took me!), screams one woman the very second the bookshelf is slid open like a door. Camera lights reveal the hidden cell to be no wider than a corridor with no window, light or ventilation. More than ten people are inside. They later tell the media that they were abducted and have been detained for a week without cases filed against them, let alone a police blotter. They slept in their own shit and urine, were tortured and electrocuted by the cops, and told that they’d only be released if they paid the PNP money ranging from 10 000 to 100 000 pesos. Instead of being freed that day, their papers are processed for their transfer to different jails.

Aswang is almost surreal in its depiction of social realities. It is spellbinding yet deeply disturbing in both content and form. Its extremely violent visuals and hopelessly bleak scenes are eclipsed by its more delicate moments: Bro. Jun praying quietly by his lonesome after a night of pursuing trails of blood, Jomari clapping his hands in joyful glee as he becomes the owner of a new pair of slippers, an old woman playing with her pet dog in an urban poor community, a huge rally where protesters demand justice for all the victims of EJKs and human rights violations, meaning that they were not forgotten. It’s also interesting to note that while the film covers events in a span of two years, the recounting of these incidents is not chronological as seen in Bro. Jun’s changing haircuts and in Jomari’s unchanging outfit from when he gets new slippers to when he’s found after months of going missing. Without naming people, places and even dates, with Arumpacletting the poor do most of the heavy lifting bysimply telling their stories on state terrorism and impunity in their own language, Aswang succeeds in demonstrating how Duterte’s war on drugs is, in reality, a genocide of the poor, elevating the film beyond numb reportage meant to merely inform the public to being a testament to the people’s struggle. The scattered sequence, riveting images, sinister music and writing that borrows elements from folklore and the horror genre make Aswang feel more like a dream than a documentary—a nightmare, to be precise. And then, a rude awakening. The film compels us to replay and review Oplan Tokhang by bringing the audience to a place of such intimate and troubling closeness with the dead and the living they had left behind.

Its unfiltered rawness makes Aswang a challenging yet crucial watch. Blogger and company CEO, Cecile Zamora, wrote on her Instagram stories that she only checked Aswang out since it was trending but that she gave up 23 minutes in because it depressed her, declaring the documentary “not worth her mental health” and discouraging her 52,000 followers from watching it, too. Naturally, her tone-deaf statements went viral on Twitter and in response to the backlash, she posted a photo of a Tokhang victim’s family with a caption that said she bought them a meal and gave them money as if this should exempt her from criticism and earn her an ally cookie, instead.

 Aswang is definitely not a film about privileged Filipinos like Zamora—who owns designer handbags and lives in a luxurious Ed Calma home—but this doesn’t make the documentary any less relevant or necessary for them to watch. Zamora missed the point entirely: Aswang is supposed to make her and the rest of us feel upset! It nails the purpose of art in comforting the disturbed and disturbing the comfortable. It establishes that the only aswang that exists is not a precolonial shaman or a shape-shifting monster, but fear itself—the fear that dwells within us that is currently aggravated and used by a fascist state to force us into quiet submission and apathy towards the most marginalized sectors of society.

Before the credits roll, the film verbalizes its call to action in the midst of the ongoing slaughter of the poor and psychological warfare by the Duterte regime:

“Kapag sinabi nilang may aswang, ang gusto talaga nilang sabihin ay, ‘Matakot ka.’ Itong lungsod na napiling tambakan ng katawan ay lalamunin ka, tulad ng kung paano nilalamon ng takot ang tatag. Pero meron pa ring hindi natatakot at nagagawang harapin ang halimaw. Dito nagsisimula.” (When they say there’s a monster, what they really want to say is “be afraid.” This city, chosen to be the dumpsite of the dead, will devour you as fear devours courage. But there are still those who are not afraid and are able to look the monster in the eye. This is where it begins).

During these times, when an unjust congressional vote recently shut down arguably the country’s largest multimedia network in an effort to stifle press freedom and when the Anti-Terrorism Law is now in effect, Aswang should be made more accessible to the masses because it truly is a must-see for every Filipino, and by “must-see,” I mean, “Don’t you dare look away.” #

= = = = = =


Buan, L. (2020). “UN Report: Documents suggest PH Police Planted Guns in Drug War Ops”. Rappler. Retrieved from

Ichimura, A., & Severino, A. (2019). “How the CIA Used the Aswang to Win a War in the Philippines”. Esquire. Retrieved from

Lim, B. C. (2015). “Queer Aswang Transmedia: Folklore as Camp”. Kritika Kultura, 24. Retrieved from

Tan, L. (2017). “Duterte Encourages Vigilante Killings, Tolerates Police Modus – Human Rights Watch”. CNN Philippines. Retrieved from

REBYU: Beastmode, A Social Experiment

Ni Judy Taguiwalo

Kagabi pinanood namin ni Nana (Prof. Jina Umali) ang documentary na may pamagat na “Beastmode, A Social Experiment”.

Si Baron Geisler ang bida. ‘Yan lang muna ang alam ko tungkol sa pelikula. Pero alam ko rin na may usapan sa nakaraan na magdo-donate si Baron para sa piyansa ni Maricon Montajes at ang dalawang kasama niya na tinaguriang Taysan 3, si Ronelo Baes at Romiel Canete.

Nakapagpyansa na si Maricon pero nakakulong pa rin si Ronel at Romiel sa Batangas Provincial Jail dahil kulang pa ang pampiyansa.

Mahigit walong taon nang nakakulong ang dalawa (June 3, 2010 sila nahuli). Nakailang beses din akong nakadalaw sa kanila at alam ko ang sikip at init na nararanasan ng mga bilanggong lalaki sa dami ng mga nakakulong doon. Kaya malaking hatak sa akin na panoorin ang pelikula ang posibleng ambag ng mga prodyuser sa pampyansa ng dalawang kasamahan ni Maricon.

Niyaya ko ang anak ko para manood, pero ayaw niya. Hindi niya nakakalimutan ang ginawang pambabastos ni Baron Geisler kay Ping Medina.

Kung ang official poster lang ang batayan, pelikula ito ni Baron Geisler at tungkol sa pakikipag-away sa isa pang aktor na di kasing-kilala niya, si Kiko Matos. Malaki ang papel ni Baron sa pelikulang ito at mahusay ang kanyang pagganap bilang in character, ang barumbadong Baron at bilang si Baron na paminsan-minsan ay nagpapaalaala sa atin na bahagi ng script ang labanan at murahan.

Pero hindi pangunahing tungkol kay Baron ang Beastmode. Tinungtungan ng pelikula ang reputasyon ni Baron bilang “bad boy” para maitago ang katotohanang set-up at pinag-kasunduan ang away ng dalawa . ‘Yun kasi ang pakay ng pelikula, “social experiment”. Sa pamamagitan ng kunyaring awayan na pinalaganap at lumaganap sa social media, ido-dokumento ang karahasan at ang epekto nito sa mga tao.

Ipinakikita ng salitan ang karahasan sa unang dalawang taon ni Duterte at ang karahasan sa pakunyaring away ni Baron at Kiko. Matitindi ang clips ng actual na karahasan –ang mga bangkay ng mga sinasabing nanlaban na mga adik at ang pighati ng kanilang mga kamag-anak.

Tinunton din ng dokumentaryo ang pangakong kapayapaan sa talumpati sa unang SONA ni Digong at ang galit at banta niya nung bigla siyang pumunta sa SONA ng Mamamayan noong 2017 kung saan sinalubong siya ng malalakas na sigaw na “No to Martial Law” at “Resume Peace Talks”. Kinunan ang mga mukha ng mga Lumad, mga magsasaka, mga maralitang tagalungsod, mga manggagawa at iba pang raliyista sa SONA 2017 at ang kanilang kahingian para sa tunay na reporma sa lupa, regularisasyon ng mga kontraktwal, pabahay, pagpapalaya sa mga bilanggong pulitikal at kapayapaan!

Ang orihinal na plano ay magkaroon ng ikalawang laban si Baron at Kiko (na ang unang staged na away ay sa Tomato Kick [isang restoran sa Quezon City] habang may benefit para kay Maricon, Ronel at Rommiel). At gagawin ito sa harapan ng mural para tigilan ang pagpatay sa mga Lumad na nasa isang pader sa UP College of Fine Arts .

Sa sobrang tagumpay ng kunyaring away ng dalawang aktor, hinayjack ang proyekto ng Universal Reality Combat Championship (URCC) na nag-organisa ng commercial na laban ng dalawa. Ang pag-capture ng dokumentaryo ng mga reaksyon ng audience ng laban na ito ang isa sa pinaka-markadong bahagi ng pelikula. Mga may-kaya ang nanood sa laban dahil may bayad at malamang ay mahal. Hiyawan, halakhakan at palakpakan ang salubong sa suntukan at bugbugan nina Baron at Kiko. Dalawang rounds lang ang laban at nang natapos ito humiyaw pa ng ikatlong round. Parang kulang pa ang duguang mukha at mga pasa ng magkalaban para matugunan ang uhaw nila sa karahasan! Mabuti’t hindi pumayag ang dalawa.

Ano ang kongklusyon ng social experiment na ito? Ayon sa direktor, malinaw na kayang manipulahin ang persepsyon ng mga tao tungkol sa karahasan. Nagawa ito ng produksyon na limitado ang rekurso pero nagamit ang social media at ang bias kaugnay sa isang karakter para gawing kunyaring totoo ang nangyaring karahasan. Diin ng direktor, lalong nasa posisyon ang estado para manipulahin ang persepsyon ng mamamayan kung sino ang pinagmumulan ng karahasan dahil sa laki ng rekurso nito.

May punto ang obserbasyon ng pagmamanipula ng mamamayan. Higit pa rito, aktwal na naghahasik ng karahasan ang estado at binibigyang lehitimasyon ito dahil siya ang may hawak ng opisyal na mga makinarya ng karahasan at panunupil. Gayundin, ang malaganap na kontrol ng estado sa impormasyon at ang bata-batalyong army ng trolls na kanilang hawak ay dagdag na mga paraan sa pagtatakip sa papel nito bilang marahas na instrumento ng mga naghaharing uri.

Ano ang aking husga sa pelikula? Mahusay. Matapang. May paninindigan. Mabuti kung mas marami pang makakapanood nito. #