Arguably one of the most defining characteristics of Third Cinema is the inspiration for audiences to take action on behalf of one cause. Frequently, the “cause” is usually some derivative of anti neo-colonialism.  In order to promote some sort of action, Third Cinema films often depict the struggles and poverty of third world countries while portraying larger more developed countries as evil dollar sign driven nations.  The latter often are depicted as taking advantage of the citizens of the lesser-developed nation. In general, stronger nations, such as the US are shown as brutal oppressive forces.  After viewing the film, “Perfumed Nightmare,” directed by Kidlat Tahimilk, I’m unconvinced that the film can be classified as Third Cinema. Through the use of humor, editing, and cinematography Tahimik uses “Perfumed Nightmare” as a film to educate the masses versus creating a bias resulting in action against social injustices.

So what exactly is Tahimik trying to “teach” his audiences? There are many instances in the film where a clear biased towards the Filipino people could be created. However in most of these situations humor was used to distract from the issue at hand, a nation being “bullied” by a bigger stronger nation.  For example when Kidlat discovers that the Supermarket has taken over the Four Seasons Market he begins to throw stones at the giant building.  Here is this tiny man throwing small stones at this giant entity. The cinematography emphasizes the comedic image. The camera is angled up making the Supermarket building seem larger than life and angled down at Kidlat making him seem puny. Kidlat appears as a small child who doesn’t get what he wants and in frustration throws rocks at an indestructible object. The whole scene is rather ridiculous, emphasizing the humor in the situation. This scene could have easily been used to show how the Supermarket or “progress” ruined the street marketers way of life and the struggle that followed for them. Instead the scene focuses on the humor of the situation, yes the Supermarket does appear as a bully but the fact that throwing rocks is Kidlat’s solution makes him seen just as discreditable.  Audiences are left feeling unsure whose side to take in the situation: the big Supermarket or the naïve little man? Instead what the viewer has gained is knowledge about the state of the world. The idea that “progress” or capitalism disrupts many peoples’ way of life.

Prior to the scene with the Supermarket battle the film shows many shots of people living content in the small town Kidlat grew up in. There are not if any scenes depicting oppression or a resistance to larger powers of any kind, common with Third Cinema films. Two scenes where one might claim that the US is portrayed as the villain or some sort of “big brother character” is when the scout masters all meet and the story of Kidlat’s father is told to him. Addressing the scenes in order, when the scoutmasters meet to discuss an issue the American scoutmaster claims that the US will be in complete control of the situation. If Kidlat were trying to highlight the US as a bullying nation the reaction of the other scoutmasters would be fear or submissiveness. This was not the case at all; in fact they laughed at the US scoutmaster for even suggesting such a thing and ran him out of the meeting. Again humor was inserted here as well, deflecting from the seriousness of the situation, the US trying to take control, what the audience just sees is this awkward lanky man trying to get through a muddy swamp like terrain. An awkward, lanky man being ran out of a meeting of men dressed in boy scout uniforms is not one that shouts “ evil oppressive bully.”

The second scene mentioned above is the one where kidlat finally learns the truth about his father he was shot by an American Soldier trying to cross a bridge.  That being said there is a magical element to the story, the dad apparently blew winds stronger than those of nature resulting in the American shooting him. The fact that there was a mythical element in this story makes it not only a little comical but viewers are uncertain whether or not to take the tale to heart. The mythology detracts from the seriousness of the situation, that his dad was murdered.  The editing of this scene also creates some ambiguity as to whether this is something to take lightly. As the story is being told the scene starts with the father crossing the bridge and realizing he can’t cross freely then cuts to a quick shot of someone smiling in the gap of a do not enter sign.  This goofy grin the audiences quickly see make this whole scene seem like a big joke.

Kidlat inserts this bit of humor to not alienate one side or the other. This makes me believe that he doesn’t want some sort of anti-colonialism uprising but more just educating his audiences on the circumstance at hand. Here is this young man living in a small Asian village who experiences the “world” for the first time. It is up to audiences what side they want to take or if any side, there is no push for one side or the other. This characteristic of the film forces me to believe that it is not a Third Cinema film.