Reaction Paper

Metro Manila is a 2013 British-Filipino indie film. Directed and co-written by

Sean Ellis, it tells the story of one Oscar Ramirez and his family as they move from
the province to the National Capital Region in search of a better life. Things dont go
as planned, however, as swindlers and other undesirable people enter their lives
and quickly shatter their hopeful image of the city. They gain hope again when
Oscar lands a job at an armored truck company and befriends his senior officer,
Ong. Time passes, and Oscar slowly realizes that things are not what they seem. He
soon finds himself in a tight situation. The death of Ong and the withholding of his
pay ultimately put Oscar at a critical point where he must make decisions that could
possibly be his undoing but could save his family.
The movie has a very rocky start. Things dont click so easily, and the pacing
just seems inconsistent. At first the main characters make one major decision after
another and suddenly they just do one thing for a period of screen time. The acting
at the beginning is a bit dry as well, and some script changes could have made
character interactions seem more natural. Everything gets better near the 20 to 30
minute mark however. The pacing of plot points becomes more consistent and
acting quality improves. Although most of the movie is rather predictable, the twist
at the end is actually very welcome as it makes viewers rethink most of what
happens in the second half of the movie. The music is more than good although it
cannot exactly be called spectacular. It is notable and the music matches the
scenes well, though some sound effects can be rather irritating or uncalled for.
One of the things I admire about the movie is the fact that it does not sugarcoat the reality of living in Metro Manila, nor does it hide the naivety of most
provincial Filipinos who dream of city life. It almost perfectly depicts the so-called
Filipino dream as we might call it. Although there do exist cases where people
from the provinces find success in the big city, those are exceptions rather that the
rule. One can easily see the difference between the mentalities of the two different
demographics. Those from the province seem to adopt a sort of were all trying to
get by and if I can afford to, I will help mentality, being more openly trusting of
other people, thinking that everyone is probably as much an honest worker as they
are. People whove lived in the city, on the other hand, seem to have developed an
1

I do what I can to survive and its either you or me sort of mentality. City life is
harsh, and they themselves must become harsh if they are to survive. It is an
endless cycle of perpetuation where like breeds like and no end seems to be in
sight. It often happens that the more innocent, honest-to-goodness provincials end
up having to stoop to more devious means just to survive. Though there are many
instances where the opposite happens, again, those instances are the minority.
Another thing that I liked about the movie was the secondary plot regarding
the story of Alfred Santos. Initially it appears to be nothing more than an anecdote
used by Oscar to compare Alfreds life to those around him. As the story progresses,
however, the life of Alfred Santos begins to become a parallel to the life of Ong and
ultimately of Oscar. The story of desperation and self-destruction is not just a simple
plot point. It is a moral lesson. In fact, the story of Alfred Santos is possibly half of
the actual movie. One can say that the entire movie is actually a comparison of the
lives of Alfred and Oscar. They travelled the same path, but ultimately, Oscar was
successful. As he explained in the movie, Alfred did what he did on no more premise
as but a simple dream. In a way, Oscar is saying that a dream is not as much a drive
to be successful as much as an actual need is, his need being the lives of his loved
ones. Alfred and died with a purpose but ultimately no actual goal behind that
purpose.
As I mentioned before, Ong also fits in with the Alfred Santos story. Ong is
possibly the most complex character in the story. He hates corruption and yet
engages in it. He points out the people who cause the corruption in the city and yet
is oblivious and even denying of the fact that his actions and his thinking actually
help perpetuate the endless cycle of corruption. Yet he is still a very relatable
character. He himself has inner struggles which compel him to do what he does in
the movie. Ironically, the box that gave him hope for the future fueled his greed
which ultimately led to his downfall. Ong is hypocritical, and yet he is easy to
identify with. Had we the chance to suddenly change our lives for the better, would
we ourselves not take it, even if there was some negative drawback to it? This gray
morality is exactly what makes Ong stand out from the pure-white innocence of
Oscar and the pitch black moral depravation of the many swindlers and hustlers
we see around the first half of the movie.

On the grounds of morality, its interesting to see how the writers interpreted
that. Ong is gray, however most other characters in the film show starkly white or
black moralities with very little trailing in the gray area in between, save perhaps for
Oscar as the movie reached its conclusion. In one scene, Oscars daughter rescues a
kitten from three boys who physically abuse it. That physical abuse could be seen
as how city folk have a tendency to bring others down. The childrens amusement at
the animals pain could signify how city folk have something to gain through making
others suffer, as the children obtain satisfaction from hurting the animal. The girls
reaction, on the other hand, further emphasizes the if I can afford to, I will help
mentality I mentioned before. She helps the animal, not thinking anymore if this will
have negative implications on her, and she does this not out of her naivety as a
child but because this, to her, is doing what is right and she no longer questions
whether she should do it or not. I am not saying that we as people are purely
innocent or purely malicious; our morality is gray and this is why we can identify
more with Ong. The two starkly contrasting opposites, however, show us what may
actually drive our moralities to become gray. Rather than showing two different
types of people, the characters in the movie seem to portray two radically different
sides of a person that may exist. Even the city folk help Oscars family every now
and then, and even Oscar and his family engage in the morally corrupt activities
that are expected in order to survive.
One final characteristic of the movie I would like to point out is the concept of
faith and, more specifically, hope. We can see that Oscar and his family are very
religious. They are obviously Christians, though this doesnt have any bearing on
the quality that I mentioned prior. They have faith. They trust in their god to deliver
them from their problems. It is this trust that allows them to persevere despite all
the hardships that have befallen them. This is because this faith gives them hope.
Though it may not be as clear in the movie, hope is the main driving factor of all of
the major characters. Hope for a better life is what drove the Ramirez family to
migrate to the city. Hope that he may save his family from poverty is what drove
Alfred Santos to take desperate actions. Hope for a better life for himself is what
drove Ong to engage in unlawful activity which ultimately led to his death. And hope
is the driving force of our main character, one Oscar Ramirez. Hope for a better life
for himself and his family. Hope for the future. Hope to live. Hope is seen throughout
3

the movie in symbols. Finding a ten peso coin in a jeep meant they could afford just
a little more. It gave them hope. Finding a home to live in also gave them hope.
Every time faith or guidance from god is mentioned, the family has hope that their
god will save them. The scene where the couple lovingly shares a bath in the
shower filled them with hope. They did not have access to bathing water prior to
that. The fact that they now did filled them with better thoughts for tomorrow. The
story of Alfred Santos was a story that gave hope, hope that one final desperate
action could be enough to cause a significant enough change in a persons life.
And finally we come to the box. The box contains a large sum of money, and
in a way it can be said that the box contains the hopes and dreams of many of the
characters. For the Ramirez family, it meant either prison should their home be
searched, or a better life should they be able to open it. The box led Oscar to his
doom, a purposeful doom. As I said, hope was the driving force for Oscar, and at the
end of that movie, the pinnacle of hope I can say was the locket he stole. It was in
that locket, which contained the images of Jesus and Mary, which I might add also
gave his family hope, that he hid the imprint of the key to the box that would give
his family a better future. All of his hope was collected into that one object, and that
one single object conveys a powerful message to us. If we hope enough, if we have
a driving force, and if we act upon it, we can make a change. It is very much
possible. Oscars locket is very much proof of this fact. Though it did not seem
much, the locket was possibly the one most important object in the film. The film
can be said to be the story of that locket as much as it being the story of the man
behind the locket.
All in all, Metro Manila was a great film. Though the beginning is a tough pill
to swallow, the movie as a whole is simply amazing. It is a true-to-life film that
anybody can relate to, especially Filipinos. There are many morals to be learned,
and ultimately you come out of the experience as a better person. I definitely would
recommend this movie to everybody I know.