Ongkiko-Marfil’s film about two best friends – a gay novel writer and a female advertising executive – speaks of the struggles of individuals confined within the chains of a male-dominated relationship. The story is about Boyet and Martha, next-door neighbors who are helplessly and foolishly in love with Dom and Steve, their respective partners, both vain users who exploited the love given them to the extent of reducing Boyet and Martha to emptiness through their come-as you-please ways of handling the relationship.

As the story progresses, Dom kills Jojo, Boyet’s adopted son, when Dom caught Jojo stealing from him. Martha got pregnant with Steve, who refused to consider marriage while firmly opposing abortion. This left the two main characters in despair until they learned to pick themselves off the ground begin a new life minus their chauvinistic boyfriends.

An important theme of the film is the subservient role of women in any relationship, as shown by Boyet and Martha. They both wait in vain for a visit from their boyfriends, in Dom’s case whenever he needs the money; and Steve whenever he feels like it. Boyet and Martha, whenever their boyfriends are around, will cook the best meals, be the supportive, cajoling image of the traditional wife, and play easy-to-please, easy-to-forgive. The film showed how male homosexuals are also victims of “enslavement by the men”, proving that the roles remain biased towards men whoever the partner may be. How men use their partners for their self-interest showed that patriarchy is a perpetually problematic concept, given that the “real” men in this film used their power to dominate, manipulate and castrate their “women”.

The title itself is interesting. The use of stray cats to symbolize the characters show how the individuals engaged in a repressive or unequal relationship are likened to cats that struggle alone, turn to a “mouse” that they can amuse themselves with in times of need, but will still fight back when trampled on or hurt. Such is the nature of a stray cat that resonates to the lives led by the characters in the story.

In the story, Dom forcibly took Boyet’s savings after killing Jojo, for he saw this as remuneration for the many times he allowed Boyet to “despoil” his body through their sexual union. This part of the film showed how some would still consider having sex with the same gender as filthy and immoral. It also somehow says that that the stigma branded to gays remains to be an important issue. Not only does society brand same-sex act or acts between two men as dirty, but one or both partners also sometimes consider the act as a defilement of their own bodies.

Dom’s character in the story also represented the issue of bisexuality, although bisexuality as an issue was not directly raised. Here the dilemma of identifying what differentiates a gay from a bisexual is clearly seen, as issues of roles and actions are raised. As a masculine, macho type of guy, Dom’s gender is rendered questionable because of his sexual contacts with Boyet, the main question being: If a supposedly “straight” man engage in a sexual act with another man (be he gay or not), what does that make him? Micahel L. Tan’s “Silahis: Looking for the Missing Filipino Bisexual Male” would say that he is, given that straight-acting masculine men who commits sex with other men, for business or otherwise, fall under the category of a bisexual.

The problem does not stop there, as the next film will dwell more on the tragedy of man-to-man relationship and the interpersonal relationship gays undergo within the context of sharing life and love with the same sex.

The Orientals: Happy Together

Wong Kar Wai released one of his most critically acclaimed art films Happy Together in 1997, the tale of two estranged gay lovers who discovered life on a tour in Argentina. The story revolved around the life of Lai Yun Fai and Ho Po Wing, both about the same age, but the former an image of the logical, sentimental idealist while the latter represents youth, immaturity and vulnerability. Told mainly through the point of view of Sung, the film tackled the inconsistencies of gay relationships and the unfortunate end of same-sex unions because of misidentification with roles and failure to recognize each other’s strengths, weaknesses and needs: Inconsistent in the sense that Lai and Ho are both simultaneously victims and predators in a relationship where both of them are shackled; failure because the errors they committed and the pain they inflicted upon each other stemmed out of their inability to recognize who they are and what they really want, both as an autonomous individual and a partner in a serious relationship.

The story’s plot is simple: two gay lovers who are in an unending on-off struggle to maintain their relationship decide to tour Argentina to evaluate and possibly strengthen their relationship. Along the way, Ho’s immaturity led him astray and he abandoned Lai in favor of rich Europeans. He became a prostitute, who goes to bed with different Argentinean men nightly. Lai, devastated, was unable to make Ho envision the life he wants them to have, and leased an apartment and secured a simple job to start life without Ho. But Ho turns up one night, badly beaten by one of his customers, and Lai took him in and cared for him until he is well enough again. Lai fed him, cared for his wounds, and in a sense, showed the same level of affection and concern he had before while maintaining a detached and disinterested demeanor on the surface.

At this point, two issues are already manifested: (1) the general notion that one or both men involved in a gay relation are almost always promiscuous, and (2) the same male-female roles of dominance and compliant that occurs not only within heterosexual unions, but homosexual couples as well. In the end, Lai and Ho never did manage to mend the relationship, because both were subconsciously unaware that the problem stems not so much from the fault one finds in the order, but more in the inability to recognize and deal with one’s own need.

Perhaps another important aspect of the film is that this kind of sad ending that occurred in the Asian gay couple also happens within Filipino gay relationships. There is the element of a conservative Asian family, hence the need to keep a gay relationship secret or quiet. Throughout the film, Lai or Ho’s families were tackled only in passing, within thoughts or conversations, but no actual interaction between the lovers and any of their families were seen. The story’s attempt to focus on the main characters seemingly cries out that Asian families are still reluctant if not apprehensive to accept the idea that one of their family members may be gay. Michael L. Tan said it best in his article “Both Sides Now” when he mentioned that: “I am out with my parents, but it is part of harsh Chinese-Filipino realities that discrimination is much stronger in our community than in Philippine society in general.” Again Tan mentioned how this becomes a problem when he said: “I am proud of my parents, but I grieve too, over the fact that we are still captives of a social milieu that would never allow us to come out and speak of the joys that come with acceptance.” (Tan, p. 206)

Although conservative families did not figure prominently in the film, the very lack of this important aspect resonates the fact that families have a way of influencing a gay’s perception of himself and on how people see him. Somehow, this same conservative nature led Lai and Ho to escape to Argentina, encouraged Ho to frolic with many men in his newfound freedom, and eventually, led to the crumbling of their already shaky relationship.

The Boy: Ang Pagdadalaga ni Maximo Oliveros

Michiko Yamamoto made an outstanding contribution to the Philippine film industry when the story of “Maxi” bagged the top award in this year’s Montreal Cinema Du Film Festival. The story’s lead, Maximo “Maxi” Oliveros, pre-teen gay boy who live in the slums of Manila with a father engaged in the “snatched cell phone” industry, two brothers – one is a bum and the other involved in illegal gambling, and friends who are entertained by his swishy ways, flickering wrists and tight floral tops matched with hair band or ribbons.

With her mother long dead, Maxi is the wife, mother and sister of his family, doing household chores and other domestic duties. His life becomes complicated when a devastatingly handsome rookie policeman assigned to their community, Victor, becomes his friend. Maxi feels love for the first time, and the story’s plot revolved around Maxi’s struggle to balance time and energy, and in the end choose between his family and Victor.

What sets this film apart from others is that Maxi is in no way degraded or ridiculed by his “macho” family. His father and brothers love him to such a degree that his “gayness” is considered valuable and their affection for him never wavered. Applying a gendered analysis at this point in the story, one might deduce that such love is attributable only to the dependency of the men in Maxi’s life to his skills in the household. He is valued mainly because he fulfills the duties his “macho” family will never even attempt to perform. He extends this duty by cooking meals for Victor and delivering them to the police station, much to the scorn of Victor’s colleagues. The precinct here stands for the “macho” social institutions, with its images of order, discipline and implementation of norms.

One gender-conscious way of looking at this story is analyzing how Maxi exist in these two “macho” worlds he dearly love: He is trapped between a family who represents the enemy of the law, and Victor, his first love, who represents order and moral right. While he shows the same amount of love for both, the story seems to say that the treatment of gays are sometimes relational to the political moment of the contemporary society, and the consciousness of the holders of power structures, as evident from the leers and jests of Victor’s colleagues.

Victor and Maxi’s family show special affection for Maxi; attributable to the service Maxi provides them. Aside from the unending enslavement of representations of women in the film, the story also somehow emphasizes how people’s views of homosexuality may vary case to case. For here, Maxi’s family accepts his gayness, a far cry from previous films where being gay is subject to mockery from his family. The story is more like the fight between what a society brand as good (Victor and the police) and evil (Maxi’s family), with Maxi being trapped in the middle. Indeed, Maxi can be replaced with a girl and the story would be the same: “the battle of two machos”. What makes Maxi an integral part of the film, however, is that it is precisely his gayness that served as the catalyst for the war of “good” versus “evil”. His choices were what breathed life into the film, for the story seems to point out that there are some cases when a person’s gender is not always the central issue or the primary cause of problems.

The film speaks of Maxi’s coming of age, but unlike girls who experience menstruation, Maxi’s transition to “womanhood” is through tears; tears for the death of his father, and tears for setting his love for Victor aside. The central issue is not really that Victor loved a man; it was because he loved the wrong man, one who clashed with the values his family stands for. In a sense, the film points out that gays falling for men can sometimes accepted, but the gendered roles are what’s hard to escape from.

The “Independent” Gay: A product of the independent cinema

A common denouement of the three films is that although they ended either sadly or happily, the gay characters were portrayed as eventually coming to terms with their own selves and learning to live life without the men in their lives. Perhaps this is one feature of these independent “gay” films: gay liberation and gay power, although not exactly with another gay lover beside him. For indeed, while gay liberation is somehow always hinted at even in commercial films, seldom do we see films that celebrate the triumphs of the “bakla”. Boyet came to terms with his life when he accepted that life could be better without a user like Dom clouding his real happiness. Sung realized that his love for Ho can only come into fruition if they both learn to battle their inner demons first. As for Maxi, we see him at the final scene of the movie walking past a sad-faced Victor, his head held high as if to say: “I don’t care about you anymore”.

Presenting the bakla as a breakaway from the “straight” male domain has long been the trend in gay films, be it mainstream, alternative (or art) or independent. Aside from the given three, other commercially released Filipino films that tackled homosexuality were Pusong Mamon, So… Happy Together, and Ang Lalake sa Buhay ni Selya, to name a few. Albeit made in good taste and boasting of social values and poignant lessons, these films, seemingly “young”, “experimental” or “introductory” to Philippine cinema, still projected homosexuality as a problematic concept, i.e., ending with a sad note that showed the misfortunes, obstacles or disadvantages of being gay. Pusong Mamon (which starred Lorna Tolentino, Eric Quizon and Albert Martinez), the triadic adventures of two male lovers and the woman who came between them, is a funny story, no doubt, but still insisted on the presence of a female character to make the story flow. So Happy Together (Kris Aquino and Eric Quizon) ended with Quizon’s character dying of cancer – lonely and “loveless”. As for Selya (Rosanna Roces, Ricky Davao and Gardo Versoza) the idea of a closet queen principal (Davao) marrying an unsuspecting teacher (Roces) to hide his sexuality hints at homosexuality as something to be hidden or shameful about.

It will be an exaggeration to say that Mga Pusang Gala, Maximo Oliveros and Happy Together are created perfect. These movies have flaws as well, but managed to offer an alternative way of presenting homosexuality through the use of complex yet sensible characters and much more realistic experiences that are devoid of the “commercialized” or viable factor noticeable in mainstream. These films did not attempt to please any institution, refrained from upholding the already biased conventions in society, but were still able to say: “We achieved something despite our difference.” Interestingly, the triumph of the characters in these gay films against the chains that continually oppress them reflects the success of independent films against the overpowering and influential presence of the mainstream cinema, which, when viewed through the lenses of gender, manifests the triumph of the “third sex” against the “straight” male and female stereotypes.

Thus, the emergence of independent cinema can be considered as a gendered project in itself because of its very notion of insurgency against the constricting binds that oppress society. From the characters, to the story, to the creators and even the phenomenal rise of independent films, everything is a gender study in the works.