1.

In the documentary, "Savage: Juan Luna in Paris" by Howie Severino, some of the primary sources
presented are the paintings of Juan Luna like "The Parisian Life," "Mi Novia," and "Spolarium." Together
with Mana-ay and Pot, Severino visited Juan Luna’s former house in Villa Dupont which can also be
considered as a primary source. A record of Luna’s participation and achievement of an award during
the Universal Exposition held at Paris last 1886 was also found in the Grand Palais by the Soiciete des
Artistes Francais. Some pictures of Luna in his house, with Rizal and with his wife together with the
Pardo de Tavera family were also shown. A text was also cited from La Solidaridad on April 15, 1893,
stating that Luna’s crime is a crime of passion and that he should be freed from his crime because he is
part of a lower race or savage and should not be punished.

The secondary sources I encountered in the documentary were the different interpretations of
historians with the life of Luna in Paris. Maria Luna Magannon said that cafes play a big role in the lives
of Illustrados at that time as it is where they spend most of their time talking with their friends and even
meeting women. There was also a theory about the woman in the painting "Mi Novia," if it is Luna’s wife
or someone named Angela Douche. Mara Pardo de Tavera and Constancio Ongpin had also different
theories about what truly happened in Juan Luna’s crime. There were also newspapers like "Nouvelles
Diverses" and "Chronique des Tribanaux," which talked about this heinous crime on the 23rd of
September 1892. The tertiary sources I noticed in the video are only some paintings and pictures from
Wikimedia commons which are mostly about life in Paris.

2.

Constancio Ongpin and Mara Pardo de Tavera had different interpretations of the same event
probably because they heard or researched from different views. Since Constancio Ongpin is from Luna’s
family, he would likely know only their side of the story and that is why Mara Pardo de Tavera
considered their “Nationalist History Point of View”, biased. Mara Pardo de Tavera may also be from Paz
Pardo de Tavera’s family but her statements are followed by justifiable proofs of the event. This is also
why I am also more convinced of her theory. For me, there is no right person in his mind who would aim
a gun through a door knowing someone could be on the other side. It can be considered a crime of
passion but the punishment is too light for such a heinous crime. Pardo de Tavera’s theory was also
justified because Felix, the brother of Paz, was shot first before them. And also it was supported by her
statement from the case that Juan Luna had a history of hurting his wife and had the potential to do
more. I can also see that Mara Pardo de Tavera’s theory is clearer, more detailed, and empirical.

3.

For me, Howie Severino presented the documentary objectively. This is because he tried to
investigate the life of Juan Luna from different views. He was able to tell how Luna kept Filipinos from
being called savage and ended up being titled as one. His purpose was not to criticize or justify what has
happened but to know and clarify what could have happened during that time. He had a purpose for
their audiences to discover different possibilities of what might have happened. He was able to do this
by following the historical method. It can be noticed that he did thorough research on his ideas,
reviewed related literature, and tried to find primary and secondary sources as much as possible. He
went to Paris to locate, interpret, and criticize these sources and evidences. And lastly, he was able to
construct a reliable narrative through his observations and present them clearly to his audience.