Directors: Joshua Oppenheimer, Christine Cynn, Anonymous
Photography: Carlos Arango de Montis, Lars Skree, Anonymous
Editors: Nils Pagh Andersen, Charlotte Munch Bengtsen, Ariadna Fatjo-Vilas, Janus Billeskov Jansen, Mariko Montpetit
With: Anwar Congo, Haji Anif, Syamsul Arifin, Sakhyan Asmara
This documentary is based on historical events in 1960s Indonesia, when political convulsions led to an estimated 500,000 to 1 million citizens murdered for real or possible affiliations with the Communist Party. In The Act of Killing, shot mostly from 2005 to 2011, producer/directors Joshua Oppenheimer and Christine Cynn (with a third, anonymous Indonesian producer/director) tracked down the murderers who participated in the genocide, the ones actually doing the killing. Cultivated by rightwing politicos, they are comically egotistical self-styled gangsters. The producer/directors asked them to reenact the murders for the camera. And these murderers, who are as much creatures of 20th-century media as anyone anywhere, are perfectly happy to do so, acting like bigshots on the set as they relive the terrors they inflicted in a jovial "we're makin' a movie!" spirit.
I can't see past that. They speak of their crimes in detail, block them out and run them through, have notes for one another, talk about the influences they see in American films (The Godfather, etc., what did you think?). They do not appear to have spent a day in jail and now they are old, fat, and satisfied. I understand the movie is undermining them publicly, playing on their vanity and tricking them into showing themselves as monsters for the world to see, and I understand it took courage to do it. I could not deny that, and the very large number of "Anonymous" credits in the long roll at the end speaks to the dangers these filmmakers put themselves in. But I still can't make my peace with this movie.
This documentary is based on historical events in 1960s Indonesia, when political convulsions led to an estimated 500,000 to 1 million citizens murdered for real or possible affiliations with the Communist Party. In The Act of Killing, shot mostly from 2005 to 2011, producer/directors Joshua Oppenheimer and Christine Cynn (with a third, anonymous Indonesian producer/director) tracked down the murderers who participated in the genocide, the ones actually doing the killing. Cultivated by rightwing politicos, they are comically egotistical self-styled gangsters. The producer/directors asked them to reenact the murders for the camera. And these murderers, who are as much creatures of 20th-century media as anyone anywhere, are perfectly happy to do so, acting like bigshots on the set as they relive the terrors they inflicted in a jovial "we're makin' a movie!" spirit.
I can't see past that. They speak of their crimes in detail, block them out and run them through, have notes for one another, talk about the influences they see in American films (The Godfather, etc., what did you think?). They do not appear to have spent a day in jail and now they are old, fat, and satisfied. I understand the movie is undermining them publicly, playing on their vanity and tricking them into showing themselves as monsters for the world to see, and I understand it took courage to do it. I could not deny that, and the very large number of "Anonymous" credits in the long roll at the end speaks to the dangers these filmmakers put themselves in. But I still can't make my peace with this movie.
To be clear, I respect the intentions. Other documentaries feature villainous people getting away with crimes so it's not like this is so radical that way. In fact, the unique feature of The Act of Killing, which is getting these baddies to act out their crimes in thoughtful detail for the camera, is utterly original as far as I know. And it's a very good way to let these people make fools of themselves, even as they espouse their deepest shallow beliefs. Over and over, for example, they tell the camera and anyone who will listen that "gangster" is a word that means "free men." They seem to believe it, the way we all seem to think the Chinese character for "crisis" combines the characters for "danger" and "opportunity."
The most interesting of these gangsters, Anwar Congo, seems to have genuine regrets. Late in the picture, when he takes the filmmakers to the very place where they most often tortured and killed, he is so sickened by the memory that we see two separate and rather alarming spells of him turning from the camera and vomiting up nothing. The sounds of his heaving alone make it seem genuine but it's so convenient and manipulative, and he and his peers seem so cocky and vain around the camera, that inevitably it feels staged too—just more fakery. Reading in Wikipedia about the aftermath for Congo particularly is interesting. The first time he saw the film he was moved and cried. He told codirector Joshua Oppenheimer, "This is the film I expected. It's an honest film, a true film." Later, however, as he realized it was making him reviled by the Indonesian public, he changed his mind.
My only point is that it's hard for me to accept people can be such monsters and live to a ripe old age with no reprisals except perhaps some public scorn, which I think gangsters kind of enjoy. I see I'm reacting like my 6-year-old self being told there is no Santa Claus. Of course people have always behaved horribly and gotten away with it. Some don't get away with it, perhaps even a majority. But isn't that me still clinging to Santa Claus? In fact, a majority probably do get away with murder and other serious mayhem that ruins the lives of others. Consider the treatment of Black people by the police in the US. Do we think it suddenly started with the invention of handy portable video cameras?
My struggle is merely with how aggressively The Act of Killing puts that in my face. It makes it hard for me to judge it fairly. But I will try: The bizarre arty scenes seem to be a natural development from the personality of one of the gangsters, who enjoys cross-dressing as a ballerina or something. Those scenes seemed garish and out of place to me. Better are scenes where they are meticulously blocking out the reenactments, converting the memories in their head into cinema, or trying to. They are as serious and fascinating as any filmmaker absorbed in the work. Some of the scenes when they are actually shooting (they get to shout "Cut!" and obviously love it) betray the childishness of their self-perception in the performances. It's a lot of playacting, just a bunch of roughhousing but with gore and simulated mass death.
Is The Act of Killing a masterpiece? I can't say. It's certainly original and a defiant act of courage too. If it ruined the old age of its subjects, or even touched their consciences as such, well, at least that's something. But the reality is they should have spent 30 or 40 years moldering in a prison, and I am constantly reminded of that in everything I see here. This bullshit is what anticommunism has brought us to.
The most interesting of these gangsters, Anwar Congo, seems to have genuine regrets. Late in the picture, when he takes the filmmakers to the very place where they most often tortured and killed, he is so sickened by the memory that we see two separate and rather alarming spells of him turning from the camera and vomiting up nothing. The sounds of his heaving alone make it seem genuine but it's so convenient and manipulative, and he and his peers seem so cocky and vain around the camera, that inevitably it feels staged too—just more fakery. Reading in Wikipedia about the aftermath for Congo particularly is interesting. The first time he saw the film he was moved and cried. He told codirector Joshua Oppenheimer, "This is the film I expected. It's an honest film, a true film." Later, however, as he realized it was making him reviled by the Indonesian public, he changed his mind.
My only point is that it's hard for me to accept people can be such monsters and live to a ripe old age with no reprisals except perhaps some public scorn, which I think gangsters kind of enjoy. I see I'm reacting like my 6-year-old self being told there is no Santa Claus. Of course people have always behaved horribly and gotten away with it. Some don't get away with it, perhaps even a majority. But isn't that me still clinging to Santa Claus? In fact, a majority probably do get away with murder and other serious mayhem that ruins the lives of others. Consider the treatment of Black people by the police in the US. Do we think it suddenly started with the invention of handy portable video cameras?
My struggle is merely with how aggressively The Act of Killing puts that in my face. It makes it hard for me to judge it fairly. But I will try: The bizarre arty scenes seem to be a natural development from the personality of one of the gangsters, who enjoys cross-dressing as a ballerina or something. Those scenes seemed garish and out of place to me. Better are scenes where they are meticulously blocking out the reenactments, converting the memories in their head into cinema, or trying to. They are as serious and fascinating as any filmmaker absorbed in the work. Some of the scenes when they are actually shooting (they get to shout "Cut!" and obviously love it) betray the childishness of their self-perception in the performances. It's a lot of playacting, just a bunch of roughhousing but with gore and simulated mass death.
Is The Act of Killing a masterpiece? I can't say. It's certainly original and a defiant act of courage too. If it ruined the old age of its subjects, or even touched their consciences as such, well, at least that's something. But the reality is they should have spent 30 or 40 years moldering in a prison, and I am constantly reminded of that in everything I see here. This bullshit is what anticommunism has brought us to.
I think it's good muckraking journalism. It draws attention to a brutal episode of Cold War anticommunist violence. One often overlooked; and one supported by US. But the Reality TV re-enactment thing was gimmicky and overplayed. It wallows in the creepy everyday banality of evil aspect of the story. I would have welcomed more good old fashion documentary voiceover providing some historical and geopolitical context. -Skip
ReplyDelete