Mariano YSAGUN) and was baptized in a Catholic Church.
He was born from of Catholic parents (Mr. The obvious reason for changing his name is that the “Manalo” surname is more familiar and appealing to filipinos (manalo means victor), driven by his plan in making a cult. His real name was “Felix Ysagun”, but for some personal hidden agenda he changed it to “Felix Manalo”, taking the family name of his mother. Only few of the Filipinos and even the brainwashed membe rs of INC knew the real life of Mr. Felix Manalo born in Barrio Calzada Taguig Rizal. It is an indigenous sect founded only on Jin the Philippines (not in Jerusalem), this religious cult was founded by Mr. One of the most controversial cult in the Philippines is the INC or Iglesia ni Cristo. For cinephiles who believe in the power of cinema to emancipate the people from ignorance, Felix Manalo is painful to watch.WHO IS FELIX MANALO – THE FOUNDER OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO? It is unacceptable to sit in a cinema and endure hours of watching a badly made film but it is worse to be lured in watching a ‘historical film’ that glorifies characters of religious organization instead of retelling the past. What stays in the mind of the viewers is the production’s willingness to let go of their art and just act as endorsers of a religion. The effort of the production to make the set realistic, to fill the screen with popular artists, and to celebrate Dennis Trillo’s beautiful face can be easily discarded. Yet, for cinemagoers who expected for a trip down to memory lane, the work is beyond shameful.įelix Manalo offers nothing but a pageantry of a family’s supposed legacy in the country. It was a proud moment for the church’s members. Flaunted in the big screen are infrastructures built by the church and recognitions they have achieved through time. The boring sequence of events concluded with a showcase of INC’s ‘achievements’ through the years. Both were made in order to turn a dull plot into an overly-exaggerated movie. Additionally, shots were recolored to simulate a melodramatic vibe.
The seemingly ordinary scenes were overemphasized by a theatrical play of a full orchestra in the background. Musical scoring and heavy editing add to the pile of the film’s flaws. Maybe, this is bought by the production’s limitation to explore the subject matter. He cannot scratch off the surface and reveal the man beyond bible and religion. But beyond this, Trillo fails to dig deep in his character. His portrayal fulfills the stereotypical bible-loving, all-knowing, and messianic image of a pastor. Trillo’s (playing Felix Manalo) characterization of an empathic evangelical leader coincides with what the film wishes to establish. The script, without subtlety, plays favorites as it draws a line separating the righteous Iglesia ni Cristo versus the ‘fake’ religions.ĭennis Trillo and an ensemble of capable casts cannot help either. From the beginning, the movie is created to be nothing but a tool in promoting a certain religion while combating others.
The series of debates between Felix and his religious contemporaries established a crystal clear standpoint of the film. The film proceeds in gradually erecting a towering pedestal for the bust of the protagonist as it cements him in a position reserved for the gods.
One by one, Manalo conquers his foes and establishes his own religion. The audience is made witness to a story of a country boy’s transformation to become one of the most influential Filipinos in the recent century. It begins with a flashback-filled narrative that chronicles the journey of a religion founder named Peles Manalo. Yet, no forewarning was sufficient to prepare us in the three-hour agony of watching a self-glorifying, history-mutilating, sect-promoting film that is Felix Manalo.įelix Manalo’s grand production cannot salvage a self-serving storyline. The lens zooms in to specific shots, frames are selective of certain environment, and lighting is used to overemphasize characters. But, as any filmmaker would attest, the notion of independent thinking ceases when the camera starts rolling. The subjectivity of art in cinema can be construed as having the freedom to interpret and understand.