Metropolitan Theater
…its history and
story of neglect
By Apolinario Villalobos
A country without a cultural landmark is like a basket that
can’t hold water. Nothing is left to stand for the past, be it significant or
not. Events just happen and forgotten, and for this, the people’s culture
suffers. Many countries, though how small they are, have won the respect of
powerful ones because of their rich past, made tangible by whatever remains.
The Philippine’s rich past has made its people look for an
outlet which took form in plays, songs, poems, paintings, sculpture and other
artistic expressions. The admixture of the eastern and western influences, have
surfaced in all these expressions. Foreign influences which left their
respective sediments in the country nourished cultures which are distinctly
different from each other. These are however, consolidated by the Filipinos in
a compromising effort to have just one that could be identified with them.
That was the benevolent intent which was magnified during
the administration of Ferdinand Marcos. The theater was then, beginning to gain
momentum in its effort for revival, as plays and concerts were again held, but
unfortunately cut short when the feisty president was deposed.
Despite its sorry state today, it is important that
Filipinos know how such neglected important landmark came to be.
The Metropolitan Theater that sprung up on a area of
8,293.58 square meters at Liwasang Bonifacio (formerly, Lawton plaza), embodies
the several periods that saw the metamorphosis of the country. The
unpretentious environment in which the expressionistic framework of the theater
took shape is just a stone’s throw from the Bonifacio monument that stands
witness to rallies of disgruntled students and workers. It is also a few steps
from Mehan Garden, once a popular recluse of Manilans on weekends. Today, Mehan
Garden is part of the Universidad de Manila campus.
Its colorful and massive façade reflects its mute desire to
stand firm and solid despite the challenges posed by turbulent years that
rocked its structure more than five decades ago. The month of February in 1945
saw the crumbling of its roof as a result of bombings and shelling by the
Allied Forces during the liberation of Manila. Its walls however, withstood the
barrage of both the allies’ and enemy’s fires.
But the theater’s story before the dark years of WWII was
something else. It was full of struggle and challenges that just strengthened
its foundation. In 1924, with an appeal from Mayor Earnshaw, an area of 8,293.58
square meters was leased by the
government of Manila to the Metropolitan Theater Company, represented by Horace
Pond, Antonio Milian, Leopoldo Khan, Manuel Camus, Enrique Zobel and Rafael
Palma. The land then was used as a flower market of Mehan Garden. It was an
untrimmed and not so pleasantly landscaped area that gave way to the theater.
The concerted effort of various communities of Manila that
comprised of Americans, Chinese, Spanish and Filipinos, bolstered the hope of
the crusading artists. A magazine, Manila’s Philippine Magazine, carried
encouraging write ups on the proposed theater in its effort to gain support
from its readers. Stocks were sold by the Philippine International Corporation
at Php100.00 and Php50.00 to raise the needed fund which was one million pesos.
The project inspired many artists. Almost everybody was
concerned and did not hesitate to offer help. One of these early sympathizers
was Juan M. Arellano, a leading architect of the era, and who was sent to study
in the United States with Thomas W. Lamb, an expert in theater construction.
His sojourn in the United States marked the birth of a unique theatrical design
which stood for the Filipino’s artistic traits. A brother of Arellano, Arcadio,
contributed his skill in decking the structure which took form shortly after
the cornerstone was laid in 1930.
What took shape was what the Phlippine Magazine editor,
A.V.H. Hartendorp called modern expressionism. Flagstone paths were cut across
lawns greened by tropical creepers and shrubs. On each side of the rectangular
theater were pavilions separated from the main hall by open courtyards.
The theater’s façade truly expressed the richness of the
Malay culture imbibed in the ways of the Filipinos. Colorful were the glasses
that made up the big “window” and the tiles on both side of the façade.
Philippine plants in relief added exoticness to the theater’s face which was
crowned with traditional Muslim minarets. Additional oriental accent was
provided by shapely sculptured figures of two women who seemed to be preparing
to take flight.
The theater’s interior equaled the exterior’s magnificence –
wide marble staircase, mural paintings by Amorsolo and modern sculptures by
Francisco R. Monti. The latter was an Italian sculptor, who practiced his trade
in the country in the early 1930s. To give a feeling of spaciousness, boxes
were eliminated. Relief figures cast shadows on the proscenium. Elongated lamps
of translucent glass in the shape of bamboo stalks filled up the empty wall on
both sides of the hall. The translucent stalks pointed to the ceiling that
burst with a cornucopia of mango fruits and leaves.
The auditorium’s facilities were excellent, although the
seating area could only accommodate 1,670, quite small for a fast-growing city
like Manila. Its lighting, acoustics, air-cooling system and dressing rooms
were all excellent and almost faultless. However, there was no understage and
the orchestra pit was too narrow.
Dramatic Philippines was responsible for the showing of
outstanding plays that made the theater famous. Very active members were
Francisco Rodrigo, Emma Benitez and Narciso Pimentel. The theater’s stage was
also grace by the zarzuela queen, Atang de la Rama.
Even when the country wallowed in the misery of
subordination by a foreign power during the WWII, the theater continued to draw
art lovers. It was used by members of the Volunteer Social Aid Committee (VSAC)
as a front in raising funds for the underground movement against the Japanese.
This group of artists likewise acted as secret mail carriers for Manilans who
would like to get in touch with relatives detained at Capas and Cabanatuan.
These Manila girls, some of whom were Conchita Sunico, Helen Benitez and Pilar
Campos, went to the extent of spending for their own clothing materials which
were then designed by Matilde Olmos, the best modiste of European clothes
during that time.
The scarred Met which lost its roof during the liberation of
Manila in February 1945 held on to what remained. Unfortunately, the transition
period did not give much impetus to those who were previously active in
theatricals. Of the several establishments housed by the Met, only the Magnolia
Rendezvous, an ice cream kiosk held firm. Meanwhile the building underwent
painful changes from a boxing arena into a cheap motel and gay bar, basketball
court, garage and warehouse, until finally, into a home for half a hundred of
displaced families.
It was in such a sorry state when a new breed of artists
surfaced and made an appeal to the government to help salvage the Met. Their
plea awakened the public from its long indifference and sheer neglect of a
priceless heritage. Trouble between the artists and a group of enterprisers
ensued when the latter proposed its demolition to give way to a modernistic commercial
complex. A petition was submitted to the National Historical Institute to stop
the sacrilegious hand and recognize the theater as an historical landmark.
The timely mediation of Mrs. Imelda Marcos gave assurance to
the artists’ victory over their destructive opponents. The Met was finally
restored to its pre-war grandeur and has been called the Manila Metropolitan
Theater. Its seating capacity was
increased from 1,670 to 1,709.
To augment its finances, galleries that fringed the outer
structure were rented out to shops that sell handicrafts, restaurants, studious
and a night club. Bigger rooms on the second floor were furnished for
receptions and meetings. Even the auditorium was leased to a movie company
which showed three-dimensional films whenever the theater was free. Once again,
shows and concerts were held.
The recovery of the theater was, however, short-lived. The
emergence of the modern Cultural Center of the Philippines, Folk Arts Theater,
modern cinema theaters and other cultural and artistic venues signaled again
its slow deterioration. Groups of concerned artists joined hands to prevent its
continued relapse to no avail….until, finally, it is back to its former state
of gross neglect that we woefully see today. To protect it from intruding
street dwellers, the periphery of the structure is fenced with board on which
are pasted scenes of its former glory.
