Set in Manila, Philippines, “Filipiñana” (2026) expands Rafael Manuel’s 2020 twenty-four-minute short film to one hundred minutes in his feature debut. Life at a country club is perfectly stylized and choreographed, but new tee-girl, seventeen-year-old Isabel (Jorrybell Agoto), is still out of step after a week on the job setting up golfers for their next swing. After exchanging words with the country club’s president, Dr. Palanca (Teroy Guzman), and realizing that they are both from Ilocano, she becomes fascinated with him. How will she feel after she learns more? While an undeniable cinematic triumph with a clear message, if you are expecting an explosive eat the rich film, adjust your expectations or prepare to be disappointed.
While Isabel is the protagonist of “Filipiñana,” Clara (Carmen Castellanos), a Filipino American visiting her uncle, Renato (Carlos Sigulon-Reyna), who owns the Golf Depot, is her foil. She is considering her uncle’s offer to work there and change the Philippines instead of staying away and complaining about conditions. Isabel is more of a mystery, but she is clearly disappointed with her work life and had imagined something better, so she is trying to figure out how to obtain it and keenly observing all the options, which implicitly includes the ambition of being a caddie/concubine. Rules and instructions do not deter her and sharing a hometown with the president is not just about aspirations for a better life, which she takes when she enjoys amenities reserved for the guests, but a visceral homesickness thus her affinity for trespassing on forbidden grounds to eat mangoes and admire native flowers. It is not until the end when there are a couple of prose dump moments that the dialogue reveals why she moved from Ilocano to Manila.
Even though “Filipiñana” only takes place over the course of a day, both women’s lives change dramatically as they learn about themselves in the unusual environment with mixed results. Do not confuse internal drama with external excitement because there is none of that here. I watch too many movies so twenty-four minutes in, I did not know exactly what was going to happen, but I pretty much gleaned all the important elements and decided to take a nap before I watched the rest instead of fighting sleep and not giving it my complete attenttion.
A lot of people are comparing “Filipiñana” to Wes Anderson’s work because of Manuel’s use of color and monotone, emotionless delivery. Manuel and Anderson use Brechtian techniques to ensure that the audience does not forget that they are watching a movie and focus on the message, but their movies are very different in tone. Manuel’s film is very joyless like a musical without music though there are musical and dance numbers. Manuel’s message is obvious: the hierarchical structure of this microcosm of Filipino society poses a threat to all life, rich and poor, the future and Filipino culture even if the ugliness is hidden or occurs off screen. It is a dystopian world leading to an apocalypse not only for human existence, but all aspects of the country. The title refers to Filipino culture or anything that stems from the Philippines.
It is not a subtle message. In the opening sequence, a transport van poses a physical threat to the locals and water ration instructions to the public standing in line are the last diegetic sounds of the city before entering the country club. In a drought, the masses are expected to conserve while the wealthy waste a finite resource. The unspoken, unrealized implication is that neither group will have water and dry up. Similarly, the landscaping tells a similar story of non-native like pine trees suffering in the sun and native species of flowers being preserved after being overharvested but are also a metaphor for sexual violence against women, which is an implied, never depicted dynamic between the golfers and the caddies, who are women dressed in pink. There are a few sequences of the uncle chasing caddies with water, which seems more innocent than a Benny Hill skit; however, a caddie assigned to Clara, Ina (Isabel Sicat), nearly jumps out of her skin because of the uncle’s proximity. Manuel has Renato enter and stay in the frame’s forefront when Ina is in the background. Nature and people are not treated like precious individuals but easily replaced widgets for others’ entertainment. The owners of the country club never consider that if their grounds are inhospitable to life, then it is not good for them either. Clara is paralleled with the withering pine tree and is already wearing brown. If she transplants herself there, her soul will die. So, the film kind of asks another question: have they already lost their soul and is this a kind of purgatory on Earth? The Chinese tourists are unsmiling, not reactive and mechanical. It was a genius move to leave Westerners out of the text though the influence is palpable with the golf course, the music and the affectation of a Sixties aesthetic. Except for the two young women or children (depending on the majority age in the Philippines) and the men, everyone else is assigned to their stories and quickly shuttled into a role and a predetermined path.
Manuel correctly leans towards showing over telling so when water plays a pivotal role in the drama, it is depicted organically though the composition and amount of time spent on the shot highlights water’s importance and is highly structured. When Isabel sees a little girl (Jewel Sotelo), an arc of water from the sprinklers that keeps the grass looking green separates them. The screener could play on a television so the sprinkler may remind those old enough to remember of static disrupting the picture on analog television channels. Later a shower in the men’s locker room and a retention pond filled with golf balls plays a pivotal role. If you are willing to cheat at golf, what else would you cheat at?
“Filipiñana” is a gorgeous film, but it is a film for the less experienced cinephiles who will go so gaga over the symbolism that they will not mind the glacial and repetitive pace to get there. Manuel not giving in to flashy, explosive catharsis deserves praise, but it is otherwise not a subtle film. It does not have to be, but it still needs to find a way to leave the audience with lingering powerful emotions without the flash. This film should haunt people long after it ends. It is likely a deliberate choice to keep things level to reflect the muted, disassociation and numbness designed to protect survivors of trauma. There is a wakeup call, but you will have to stay until the credits are done to raise it. Even if a person’s soul can be saved, it does not mean that the world will not end. It does not need to be remade, but if it was, it should take place in the interior of an AI company and have Clara appear as an employee.
