IN Hollywood, scientists save the world. They are at the forefront of major stories— solving deadly outbreaks, leading space explorations, or developing groundbreaking technologies that could either break or make the world. 

But in Philippine cinema, where are they? 

There are some studies that argue that the Philippines don’t have a strong culture of science, that we are far from being a scientific community. This is not surprising, according to a study by the Ateneo School, Science in the country is allegedly characterized by “insufficient scientific capacity, middling research productivity, and limited funding”. 

This lack of proper exploration of science is starkly reflected in our cinema. Take a moment and think carefully: When was the last time you saw a Filipino film featuring a scientist as a central character? And if you did, how was the scientist portrayed? Was he the stereotypical ‘mad scientist,’ with his genius teetering on the edge of insanity, or perhaps a socially awkward figure, incapable of fitting in with others? Or, even rarer—was the scientist a woman, breaking from the usual mold?

If you’re a regular viewer of Hollywood films, these questions may be easier to answer. Hollywood has long celebrated science in various forms—whether it’s sci-fi action blockbusters like Jurassic Park, gripping natural disaster movies like San Andreas, or biographical films that highlight the lives of iconic scientists, like Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything.

In the Philippines, these kinds of films are a rare sight. In fact, we have yet to see a Filipino scientist biopic hit our big screens. While scientists may not be featured as prominently in local films as they are in Hollywood, they have made appearances in some notable works—mostly in the 80s and 90s. However, these portrayals often stray from the idealized or heroic depictions seen in Western cinema, leaving us to question what this absence means for how science is valued in Filipino culture.

For this article, republicasia spoke with a Science Communication expert from University of the Philippines Los Baños – College of Development Communication to break down the portrayal of scientists in Filipino films and how this could possibly reflect our culture of science. 

Cinematic science

Assistant Professor Garry Jay S. Montemayor has dedicated nearly 14 years to studying the portrayal of scientists in Filipino cinema, uncovering patterns and archetypes that shed light on how these characters reflect public perceptions of science.

Prof. Montemayor is currently a faculty member of the College of Development Communication, under the department of Science Communication. He took his master’s degree in University of the Philippines Diliman. 

“Actually, ito ay part ng master’s thesis ko. Itong research about scientists,” he said during a Zoom interview. 

“May malaking dearth in research about portrayal of scientists in Philippine Cinema. In fact, hindi lang portrayal ng scientists in Philippine Cinema ang may dearth tayo, kundi ‘cinematic science’ ang tawag natin do’n noh.”

Cinematic Science refers to the portrayal of scientific concepts, discoveries, and professionals in films and other forms of visual media. It involves how science is represented in the context of storytelling, whether through characters like scientists, technological inventions, or scientific phenomena. It can range from realistic portrayals like in documentaries to fictionalized depictions like sci-fi actions and thrillers. 

“‘Yung role ng mga scientists, for example, sa paggagawa ng isang sci-fi na film. ” said Prof. Montemayor. “Hindi ‘yun din masyadong pinag-uusapan sa atin. ‘Yung role nila sa pagki-create o pagde-design ng kuwento ng isang storya.”

“Malaki ang dearth ng research about the portrayal of scientists in films. Nasabi kong malaking dearth kasi sa ibang bansa, merong mga studies about it. Marami na actually. Pero sa Pilipinas, nung tinitignan ko ‘yung… nung nag-RRL ako, wala tayo masyadong study about it.”

Archetypes of Filipino scientists

In many years of studying the subject matter, Prof. Montemayor created varying ways to categorize the portrayal of scientists in the Filipino cinema. The most general way was classifying them into four categories, namely the Good scientists, the Bad scientists, the Comic scientists, and the Victim scientists. 

Under this, you have the subcategories such as the Well-rounded Genius and the Heroic Creator in the Good umbrella, the Evil Expert and the Mad Intellectual under the Bad umbrella, the Foolish Professor and the Hermit Prodigy under the Comic, and the Helpless Victim under the Victim. 

1. The Good

In this classification, the scientist characters in the films are portrayed in a good light. They are either the protagonists who are keen to create, invent, or use science to do good, or they have created either intentionally or accidentally the ‘hero’ of the story. 

The Well-rounded Genius is the scientist character portrayed to be thriving not just in their scientific field, but in other aspects of life as well. They are smart and, at the same time, socially capable. An example of the Well-rounded Genius scientist is Dolphy’s character in The Crazy Professor (1985). 

The Heroic Creator, on the other hand, is responsible for the creation of superheroes who go to fight evil. An example would be the 1985’s Super Wan Tu Tri starring Vic Sotto, Tito Sotto, and Joey De Leon. 

2. The Bad

From the name itself, this category features the wicked and bad scientists who use their intellect to cause harm and spread evil. They are mostly the antagonists in the Filipino films. 

Falling into this category is the Evil Expert archetype. These are the scientists who embody villainy without justification—characters who are simply bad for the sake of being bad. Their motivations are often exaggerated, with little to no depth beyond their role as a caricature of evil. They wanted nothing more than to rule the world using their intellectual prowess. 

An example of the Evil Expert can be seen from the portrayal of a scientist in the movie Kalabog En Bosyo (1980s). Jaime Fabregas played the character. In the film, he created ‘super soldiers’ to help him take over the world. 

Meanwhile, the Mad Genius or Mad Intellectual is not as evil as the Evil Expert. What differentiates them from the Evil Expert is their drive. They are fueled by madness, obsession, their fixation on science, rather than their inherent badness. 

They typically come with a backstory that explains their descent into madness, or they’re often victims of some past injustice and their current evil actions are products of their desire for revenge, or the belief that they are correcting a wrong. 

Odette Khan’s Mad Scientist portrayal in Supergirl (1973) is a good example of this. In the film, she and her family were driven away by townfolks, just because they were blamed to be a cursed family. 

3. The Victim

The helpless victim is neither bad nor good, according to Prof. Montemayor. However, they might have done something bad that led them to being victimized by their own invention or another person. 

The perpetrators of the victim scientists could range from the political system itself, to more absurd forces like aliens. 

4. The Comic 

Fourth in the category is the Comic scientists. Their characters are often portrayed as laughable, the comic relief in the film. Their eccentricity and lack of social skills becomes a source of comic relief in the film. 

The Hermit Prodigy falls in this category—a genius who, despite their exceptional intellect, struggles with social skills and personal connections. Often portrayed as awkward or socially detached (think: Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory), these characters are set apart from others because their brilliance makes them seem different, if not entirely isolated. Their intelligence is both their gift and their curse, often causing friction with the people around them.

The Foolish Professor really embodies the category of the Comic, as they are often featured in comedy movies. Their purpose is really to be a comedic relief, a source of jokes. He is often characterized by a very child-like personality or he complicates simple problems by providing high-stakes scientific solutions. 

Jimmy Santos’ character on Praybeyt Benjamin is an example of this. 

Key trends of Filipino scientists

Prof. Montemayor also highlighted some key trends he observed in his study about our view of science and of scientists. 

He said that although we have several films that portray science, they only depict science not as something actually consequential to the community, but rather as something trivial. That is why most of the Pinoy films that involve science are in the comedy genre. 

“Pagdating sa key trends kung paano dine-depict ‘yung scientists natin, unang-una, makikita natin ang height ng depiction ng scientists between mid 80s to mid 90s. Ando’n, maraming mga scientist films do’n. At marami sa kanila ay more on comedy,” said Prof. Montemayor. 

Most scientists in the height of their depictions are almost always men. 

“When it comes to gender, mas maraming scientists na lalake kesa babae,” he said. 

The women scientists in films appeared in the 70s, and both were portrayed as villains. 

“Ang earliest na babae na nakita ko ay ‘yung 1973 na Supergirl. That was Odette Khan, and 1980 na Darna at Ding by Marissa Delgado,” he said. 

“Now, itong dalawang ito, babae sila na scientists, pero pareho silang antagonists. Pareho silang kontrabida. Kasi ang ginawa nitong mga ‘to, gumawa sila ng mga minions, in the form of zombies, para ipakalat ang kanilang revenge sa kung sinoman ‘yung nang-api sa kanila.”

Fortunately, this trend in gendered scientist portrayal changed during the early 2010s, just right after the Second Wave of Feminist Movement. 

“Pero itong mga recent movies, kung titignan mo ‘yung trend sa mga recent movies natin after 2010, merong mga babaeng scientists— ‘yun ‘yung una. At ikalawa, protagonists na sila. Ang example niyan ay ‘yung Ang Huling Henya ni Ruffa Mae Quinto,” Prof. Montemayor shared. 

“And then we have in 2018, Alimuom ni Keith Sicat. Merong isang scientist din do’n na mas complex ‘yung character niya. Dinedepict do’n yung political problems ng Science and ng society. Meron siyang mga internal struggles, so mas kumplikado ‘yung depiction ng scientist sa kanya.”

Prof. Montemayor also highlighted that Filipino films, especially the 80s and 90s ones, usually box scientists in visual stereotypes. 

“Mas pronounced ang visual stereotypes during those days. ‘Pag sinabi nating visual stereotypes, ito ‘yung Einstein-looking: gulo-gulo ang buhok, may salamin. Minsan, kung hindi gulo-gulo ang buhok, marami sa ‘ting scientists ang kalbo. Si Jaime Fabregas napakaraming films— I think nakakaapat na akong films sa kanya na scientist character niya during those times.”

Another interesting key trend is the types of scientists featured in films and the specific fields of science they are often associated with. These portrayals can reveal something about which areas of science are valued or deemed significant in society, as well as how these fields are represented in the public imagination. 

The scientific fields that are most commonly featured in our films are Chemistry and Biology. There were some characters who are associated with Archaeology, but they are not specifically acknowledged as scientists. 

Impact of Science representations on public perception

During the interview, Prof. Montemayor said that there are no studies yet about why the key trends are like this. But he has several hypotheses. 

“Wala pa akong empirical research from that noh, wala pa tayong research explaining bakit gano’n ‘yung trends. But dahil nalubog ako sa ganitong research, meron akong ilang mga hypothesis ba kung bakit naging ganon.”

One of the reasons he’s looking at is the influence of the Western culture on Filipinos. 

“So unang-una, malaki ang effect ng Western films sa local films.’Yung height ng films na may mga scientists sa ibang bansa ay nasa 70s, 80s, and 90s din. Dahil ganon, naaapektuhan ng Western films the way ng paggawa din natin ng films dito sa atin. I think nare-reflect lang niya kung anong nangyayari sa international scene. Kung paano pinoportray ‘yung scientists sa ibang bansa, halos kamukha din natin dito, although merong nuances na magkakaiba sila.”

Another reason he’s focusing on is to understand why scientists are so often stereotyped in films, despite the significant differences from their real-life counterparts. 

This gap between cinematic portrayals and reality raises important questions about how media shapes our perceptions of science and its practitioners.

“Pangalawa na iniisip ko, no’ng mga panahon na ito, I tend to think that scientists back then were not as accessible compared to now. Which means that if something is not accessible to you and somebody presents information about something that is not accessible to you, then you tend to believe that that information is true, kasi wala ka namang source of comparison. Na ito pala ang real scientist as compared do’n sa fictional or entertainment scientist.”

Prof. Montemayor said that science films like these are important, but they are not given attention to because of the way we still view science in terms of media. 

“Siguro ang reason, ang common thinking kasi between the interaction of science and media, ay more on ang assumption natin ay dapat ‘yung media ay ginagamit natin as a tool for instruction sa science. Para ma-heighten mo ‘yung awareness, ‘yung knowledge ng mga tao about science.”

“So, in a way, ‘pag sinabi mong interaction ng science and media, dapat instructional siya like Sineskuwela, Batibot, at iba pa. Usually like that, noh.”

But the subject of science should not only be limited to the instructional mode. As Prof. Montemayor said, mixing it with entertainment can encourage people to engage more in science. 

“‘Yung mga fictional films like what we’re talking about now, hindi sila instructional films. They are not meant to encourage students to go into STEM. They are not designed to teach a certain Science principle. Pero ang ginagawa nitong mga films like these, they start conversations around Science, which could lead to interest in Science.”

“Kung magbabase ka sa Deficit Model, [Science films] is a no-no. Hindi sila accurate. Pero mapapansin natin na hindi naman ‘yun ang aim, hindi ‘yun ang point ng Sci-fi. Ang point ng Sci-fi is not to teach but to start discussions. To engage the public about something.”

“Now, pakaine-engage mo ang mga tao, ‘pagka you let people talk about it, and have an idea about it, you might make them more interested about science. ‘Yung public perception about Science, ‘yung public perception about scientists, hindi siya nakukuha sa knowledge. Nakukuha siya sa meanings that they attach to science and scientists.”

For Prof. Montemayor, encouraging people to delve into science is not just a matter of knowledge but of culture. 

“Kaya siya cultural. Ito ang reason kung bakit ‘pag pinag-uusapan natin ang Filipino scientists in movies, cultural meanings ang pinag-uusapan natin dito, hindi siya ‘yung accurate scientific principles. At kung babalikan mo ang Theory of Planned Behavior, hindi predictor ang knowledge sa intention.”

“Gano’n din dito sa science. Kahit ang dami-dami mong knowledge na ibibigay sa kanya, kung hindi siya predictor na mae-encourage sila mag-STEM or mag-scientist. Pero it might be na mas factor pa ‘yung meaning na they attach to science and the scientists. At nabubuo nila ‘yan sa exposure sa ganitong klaseng mga films.”

For Prof. Montemayor, the meaning people attach to science and its related concepts matters more than their actual knowledge of the subject when it comes to shaping public attitudes and perceptions. Mass media, especially cinema, has a powerful role in influencing these beliefs, as it can shape how the public views not only science itself but also the individuals who practice it.