In writing about this "documentary of the imagination" here, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges called The Act of Killing "an important exploration of the complex psychology of mass murderers," saying "it is not the demonized, easily digestible caricature of a mass murderer that most disturbs us. It is the human being."
But there are others who were outraged and disgusted and called the film "repellant," like the Christian Science Monitor's Peter Rainer, who wrote in his review, "Oppenheimer allows murderous thugs free rein to preen their atrocities and then fobs it all off as some kind of exalted art thing. This is more than an aesthetic crime; it's a moral crime."
For this week's post, please tell me as specifically as possible what you think the director Joshua Oppenheimer's approach to the material is. Is he being Responsible and Ethical in his portrayal of the atrocities committed in Indonesia? If so, how? If not, how not? And how does Oppenheimer show Authority in this film - or does he? Please answer these questions and remember to provide an example of two from the film itself to support your claims.
Additionally, I'd like to know what (or whose) interest you think this film serves. What impact might it have on those watching it (like you)? Does it take into account the welfare of the people represented? If so, how?
Finally, and just in case you'd like more information about The Act of Killing before we meet, here are few additional links:
- An interview that provides some context, background and aesthetic insight from the director Joshua Oppenheimer (here)
- An excerpt from a feisty and condemning piece about the film written by BBC producer and doc expert Nick Frasier titled "We Love Impunity" (here)
- A report showing the incredible impact the film has had on Indonesia, where it triggered the first public debate of its kind around the country's past and inspired the Human Rights Commission of Indonesia to call the film "essential viewing for us all." (here)
I look forward to hearing everything you have to say about this polarizing and provocative film, especially in terms of Ethics, Responsibility, Evidence, Authority and Authenticity - by no later than 9 am on Tuesday morning, of course.
The Act of Killing
ReplyDeleteDuring the spring semester at my other school, as I was taking World of Cinema, we began watching The Act of Killing but we stopped watching about a third of the way through. I remember thinking it was one of the most bizarre documentaries I had seen. After seeing the entire thing for the first time this week, I must conclude that I still think it is indeed one of the most bizarre documentaries I have ever seen. What I couldn’t understand was why the “gangsters” would want to make a film to show the world how they killed people and talk openly about the process in how they conducted themselves in 1965. To me, it seemed very damning, especially when the one spoke openly about running for parliament and how he planned on extorting money out of people or when they would extort money out of the Chinese business owners. It was all very bizarre.
I think what also struck me as weird was how they wanted to share their story, in the artistic way dressed up as a drag queen, with some of the scenes with that odd make up on their faces, and various stuffed tigers just was so odd. And the candid way that some of the leaders would speak in front of the camera about their actions both now and in the 60’s was just unbelievable. It seemed to me that all of the people would be more concerned with how they were coming across and that they might be held responsible for the crimes they had committed. However, the whole system in Indonesia seems to be corrupt and they all are stealing from everyone.
At the end, when Anwar Congo is shown having a visceral reaction to the murders, somehow possibly having a conscience and some sort of regret, it just further confused me about the purpose of this film. I’m not entirely certain about whom this film serves, but I do think that it possibly serves to show that the people that were held as heroes for so many years are and were horrible people doing despicable things in the name of the good of the government. Perhaps this film serves to help the families of the victims that the “gangsters” killed and gives them some sort of closure.
Regardless, it is a compelling story that seems to have made an impact in the country, from all the extra pieces that I read in conjunction with this film, like the review by Peter Rainer and Chris Hedges as well as the report. Additionally, I agree with Nick Fraser that perhaps it was in bad taste to have the “gangsters” to script and restage their murders, as it just didn’t seem right to me. However, I was intrigued by this story and found myself wanting to know more about what happened, so I guess that was one purpose of this film.
My initial reaction to Joshua Oppenheimer’s The Act of Killing was a positive one. By the end of the film I felt as though he had accomplished two main things: a deep story of self-deception, Anwar Congo, and a broader look at the nature of genocide. I was moved by the idea that art, specifically filmmaking, could move a mass murder of this kind into such remorse. At the same time though, most of the other killers were not as moved and used the film to boast about their exploits in a time when they were the law.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the reading about ethics and the lack of clear guidelines, I have to say I began the film thinking it was very unethical. Before starting The Act of Killing I had read both the reading and the blog post. So when I had it in my mind that Oppenheimer was working with the victims to find out what happened to their loved ones, but also teetering on that line of “filmmaker or …best friend in America” (14) I got a little worried. After completing the film, and seeing what little remorse Congo felt, I also felt a little more at ease. The victims did get their story, in fact they got more than they wanted probably, and now there is a film that can help to show another side of the politics in Indonesia. One line that really struck me in the reading was “This protective attitude was dropped when filmmakers found an act ethically repugnant, often seeing their job as exposing malfeasance. In one extreme case, for instance, the filmmaker did not protect a subject who implied that he had committed a murder”(9). This line in itself allowed me to forgive Oppenheimer for his deceiving Congo and his band of killers, but it is also Oppenheimer’s ability to record these men and see them as more than just mass murderers. The human element is an important factor to address if we are ever really going to do anything about the prevention of genocide, it is also a big part in addressing all of our self-denial and storytelling we do to cover up the things we are ashamed of.
The reviews on the other hand were not so positive. “It isn’t fair to make any comparisons between [Shoah] and The Act Of Killing, but one might observe that unlike Shoah the latter never gets much further than the long and laborious contemplation of its own methodology” (Fraser). While I don’t agree with this review, I think I might have if I hadn’t read about the filmmaker’s original intent. The idea of making a Hollywood film about genocide, made by the actual men in power, is a pretty outlandish idea, but that is not where Oppenheimer starts. He only gets the idea after being denied access to the survivors’ families and has already been consistently horrified by the mannerisms and lack of remorse the leaders have.
Directed by Joshua Oppenheimer, “The Act of Killing” is a documentary about a group of Indonesian leaders re-enacting cruel murders from American movies. The movie starts by showing footage of the ocean. I think that the ocean was an excellent place to start off the movie because it represents destination and relaxation. White wording showed on the screen saying, “All murders are punished, unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” I do not agree that if murderers team up, they are not punished for their wrong doings. The murderers would have to be punished mentally as shown from some characters in the movie. After the ocean scene, the scenes did not show relaxation throughout the movie. Piano music then plays and women promoting sexism are giving meditative dancing poses on a movie set.
ReplyDeleteIn 1965, the Indonesian government was overthrown by the military. Anyone against the military could be automatically labeled a communist. A communist are union members, landless farmers, intellectuals, and the ethnic Chinese. Over one million people guilty of being communists were murdered before the time of a year. The army had members along with gangsters committing the crimes against innocent people. Throughout the “The Act of Killing,” the some innocent people spoke against the military and how they want the military to apologize for their actions. It was sad how the innocent people lost hope and knew that the military will not apologize for killing.
ReplyDeleteThe scene then switches to an Indonesian man searching for adults and children to perform in his movie. Eventually, the camera man follows someone. He learns that many ghosts were claimed to appear in a specific area after innocent people were murdered. The victims died from having wires tied to their throats, then being pulled. I enjoyed how the man re-enacted the murders, but the fact that he killed people did not satisfy me. In order for the killer to escape from the memory, he listened to music, danced, did alcohol, marijuana, and ecstasy.
The military was furious because they were losing money. Their money came from popular American films being shown in Indonesia. Thus, the military lost many audience members that they can benefit from. In another scene, Ibrihim Sibrik, a newspaper publisher famous around the country is shown. It is said that if he publishes someone is guilty in his newspaper, the victims are bound to be killed. Then, the leader of the military is seen in another scene, saying, “If we’re gangsters, I’m the biggest gangster of them all.” I find that statement to be true because the military follows the commands of the leader in order to kill.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the scenes on how the military attempted to scare the communists because it was revealing how scared the victims were. One victim in a scene was blindfolded with a sharp weapon aimed at him. Before he was killed with a wire tied behind his neck, he cried with saliva oozed from his mouth, and snot poured down his nostrils. One member of the military was recorded joking about raping beautiful women if the military was still powerful. When an elderly man from the film crew said they can make a film more sinister than the Nazi’s, I enjoyed that part. By chopping off actual people heads in a nonfiction movie, “The Act of Killing” is a more sadistic movie than what Nazi’s are in. A pregnant woman was shown getting beaten and threaten of being raped, which expressed reality.
There were great camera angles in the colorful documentary. There were subtitles and I dislike reading them just to comprehend what was going on. I had to look at the motion picture at the same time. Also, there were both, black and white family photographs introduced to “The Act of Killing,” which kept me more entertained.
The guy responsible for banning American films in Indonesia was caught and tortured by gangsters. He was nearly suffocated with a wire tied around his neck. I actually thought that the gangsters deserved to kill the guy banning American films in Indonesia because people have the right to look at what they want. The military were also killed people by crushing their heads with wood, and running them over with cars by legal action.
ReplyDeleteThere is a famous quote, "History is written by the victors", and as Anwar and Herman, the doc's main stars reveal, they were the winners. In 1965, Indonesia was laid prey to "gangsters" like Anwar and Herman. Brutal tortures, killings, and other monstrosities were carried out by their hands. However, this is not a Doc of condemnation. It almost seems to be the opposite. Anwar and Herman walk around as free men--which strangely enough is how they define the word "gangster". They were not imprisoned for the crimes they committed years ago. They have gone on just living, happily, and without any foreseeable guilt. They laugh as they reminisce upon the old glory days of killing.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary is not just odd because of it's viewpoint however. Yes, we are used to the victim side of horrid history, we are accustomed to the "remember the sacrifices, remember the injustice occurred". This Doc gives us the victors side, the viewpoint of the persecutors, the killers, the Pancasila Youth. What is all the more powerful is that this documentary gives not the apology or the guilty consciences, instead it gives us a look at these killers who are giddy, nostalgic, and surprisingly human. It took me a good chunk of the documentary to realize that this was supposed to be a serious subject matter, hard to tell when grandpa-like kidders are dancing around in mob movie costumes with floppy hats. The way this doc was filmed presented us with incredulously triumphant and surprisingly comical murders. Men who are not only okay with what they did in the past, but damn right proud. These two practically jump at any chance to relive the bludgeonings. On a roof top one of the men, the lanky, friendly faced gentleman, takes a wire and wraps it around an actors neck then pretends to pull. Showing us a-matter-of-fact tutorial on how to kill a man cleanly-- or at least what he found through his experience to be the least messy cleanup. And of corse, he chuckles the whole time.
The two reenact other killings, relishing in the remembrance of the past the days that gave them fame. I thought this film was both disgusting and eye opening. You asked about the director's role in responsibility and morality. Was this film ethical? Was it respective of the 2 million+ Indonesians who lost their lives at the hands of men like this? No. I would say it wasn't. And yet, this film still had purpose beyond it's choreographed dance sequences. It is impactful because it shows us just what killing is. An injustice so fierce that the offenders become detached from what it really means. Who's to say that Amar and Herman are any different than any of us? When you are given permission to power-- in this case the ability to take another's life--without repercussion, you become addicted to the sensation. They became untouchable. They could do as they pleased. They were gods for a short while, and a god always wants to be remembered. By showing us men so unaffected by regret or shame, we see even more clearly how atrocious war is.
After hearing those quotes from the start of the film, and similar ones all throughout, I was a bit unsettled by the folks and the subject matter of this doc. I initially thought this film was going to act as some sort of apology or admission of guilt for the mass murders that were committed but instead I watched the glorification of a group of men who were seen as "heroes". From the start of the course we have talked about the use of reenactments and the use of them and documentary and often I find myself fond of them if they aren't too stylized. But with this film I found myself a bit sick while watching them. Anwar wanted to make sure that the reenactments were up to par with the murders he committed and the interrogations he held. I understand wanting to be accurate and somewhat truthful with these scenes, but it was so clear that Anwar, Herman, and their affiliates enjoyed making the scenes. Or when they talked about how they would kill people after seeing a show at the cinema they smiled. I just could not believe that these men could enjoy this.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure who this doc was made for or what audience the director had in mind while shooting it, but I think this would be the perfect film to show people who think that the lives they are ruining and endangering, along with the murders they are committing are completely unjust. Overall this was a very weird and unsettling doc.
(My first response got deleted somehow so this one won't be as awesome as the other one. I apologize in advance.)
ReplyDeleteI had seen part of this for W&R1 and I remember being quite disturbed by it. Now seeing the film in it's entirety, I am even more disturbed and confused and sick by what I've seen, but the way this documentary was executed, was amazing.
Before watching the film, I googled reviews about it because I was curious to see how people felt. As much as the reviews grid to differ from each other, they were all centered around a central theme that I agreed with: That Oppenheimer took such a sensitive subject with "malicious" killers and he made them seem human. It doesn't get anymore ethical than that. I believe he was in ethical boundaries because there was nothing in his documentary that would shine a negative light (at least to the subjects involved) on this topic. If anything, the subjects were ready and willing to participate and Oppenheimer did the right thing by letting them choose how they wanted to tell their story. This was a smart choice as well because you were seeing them as people, not as monsters, which is who they believed they were.
Of course some people would have issues with this documentary because of the type of material it contained. For instance, with the "gangsters" dressing in drag pretending to be women who were about to get raped and Anwar dancing around in a spot where he tortured me and even came up with a cleaner way to kill and doing imitations of how they would kill the communists. But that's what gave the documentary authenticity to me. One being actually able to see it and see it by the people who were actually involved in these activities. Had any dramatized reenactments with actors and slow motion occurred, they would've taken creditability away from it.
As for Oppenheimer having authority, I at first thought he wasn't in control. But then again he could've been in control the entire time. Here is my reason for this contradicting logic: I say he wasn't in control because the subjects were telling the story the way they wanted to, but in reality, that could've been Oppenheimer's choice the entire time.
Overall, he was in his ethical boundaries because he respected the subjects and their culture and had no bias or intention to exploit them. The documentary was very interesting and well done even though it was eerie and left me with a feeling of discomfort. If I had the option to watch this documentary again, I wouldn't because it was just too much for me.
The Act Of Killing was a shocking and disturbing as promised. I have never seen such honest killers before and what was so sickening was that they felt no shame. Oppenheimer really didn’t put the gangsters in a good light by letting them spew there crimes like heroic feats.
ReplyDeleteThe ethics in putting together a film that portrays completely unethical people must have been a difficult job for Oppenheimer. He knew the story had to be told and decided that he would get close to the actual masters of the killing sprees. I think he felt he was responsible for getting these men’s side of the story no matter how sickening it was. Authority comes from the first hand accounts of the times, the people, and the killings, but I wish there was more to the communist side of the story rather than just that one guy’s story who’s dad was taken. I know all the communists died but I wonder if any communist’s children were thought of being put in the film.
Anwar’s emotional journey from the start to end of the film was what I found most interesting and profound in this doc. He seemed to be the only one I could truly sympathize with because he was the one who showed remorse. I even felt slightly sick to my stomach as the film ended because I was so confused with my own opinions and feelings. Anwar truly believed he was doing the right thing much like the Nazi’s in WWII except he was fighting for a much scarier thing than Hitler oppression; he was fighting for a free country much like America had. It’s strange seeing a modern version of the fight for freedom play out in such a disgusting and repulsive manor.
I think the people in the movie truly thought they are bringing their “great” deeds to light when in actuality it shows what monsters they are. The Act of Killing serves as a testament to modern ideals; we don’t accept this behavior any more. I feel as though the movie was meant to shock me and inform me but what I really got out of it was how far people will go to get what they think is “right.” I honestly don’t know if the movie takes into account the welfare of these men but I do think even if the gangsters watched the film they wouldn't see how awful the things they did really were.
So this week, I opted to watch the Director’s Cut of this particular film, because I really wanted to explore some of the more personal aesthetic choices made by the filmmakers, themselves, seeing as how we are on the topic of ethics and responsibility. And honestly speaking, the entire experience was a bit bizarre for me, personally. By the end of this film, I had a headache because of the various juxtaposed ideals being communicated. We witness these men, who have committed unfathomable atrocities, dancing in the lot where they once shed the blood of others, laughing and boasting with one another about the glory days, getting visits to the dentist, talking about their favorite movies and even demonstrating signs of spiritual awareness in a way that we can all relate, all the while showing no remorse for their heinous acts. The degree of corruption embedded within this organization was so blatantly profound, that it was unsettling to say the least. It almost left me in a state of numbness, very much like a few of the subjects in the film. I’m not quite sure whether the intent of this film was to humanize those individuals otherwise perceived as monsters by the greater society, or to document the personal revelations that are brought forth by tearing down the psychological walls of self-deception and false rationalization. In a sense, some of these subjects didn’t exhibit either of these outcomes, so perhaps the point of this film was to showcase just how aloof and egocentric the human soul is capable of being at the expense of others, all in the name of triumph and self-fulfillment. With regards to the matter of ethical responsibility, I’m still not quite certain how to answer that question. The only responsibility that I feel a non-fiction filmmaker owes in the name of both art and truth is to reveal the human condition in its various unadulterated states. This film did just that. The filmmaker’s strategy of utilizing re-enactment and dramatization to explore his subjects was interesting because the exaggerative nature of it all truly revealed the degree to which some individuals substantiate and revel in their choices, while others use it to decompose their walls of renunciation. I was discomforted by it, but it isn’t because I feel that it wasn’t “told right” or told to my liking of what I’d picture a film like this to show, but because the reality of what was shown was ambiguously disconcerting, and all too familiar of what I know the nature of the world to be. It’s fairly easy for us all to swallow the idea of justice, or of “bad things” happening to “bad people”. What is not so easy is facing the more disturbing reality that people are just people. We make choices, some good, some bad. We amplify the good, and rationalize the bad. People forget, and life goes on.
ReplyDeleteThis film is definitely one of the most interesting documentaries that I have ever seen. The whole process of reenacting specific procedures that were utilized by these ruthless executioners, mostly played by the actual murderers, was something I have never seen in a documentary. This really added a kind of cathartic feel, at least for the ex-killers who through the reenactment of these events see these brutal acts of violence in a completely different light. Especially when Anwar, the main gangster who is depicted throughout the film, is on the receiving end of this kind of torture and becomes almost catatonic while he occasionally shakes his head from side to side in disapproval.
ReplyDeleteEventually towards the end of the film, when Anwar gets a chance to watch the aforementioned scene, he begins to have a minor breakdown as he becomes overwhelmed by guilt, and you can see how much acting as the torture victim in that scene really affected him and brought back horrific, repressed memories. I also thought the imagery was artfully shot, and the filmmakers did an excellent job at capturing some vividly beautiful landscapes that were great for contrasting everything that was being said throughout the duration of the film. I wholeheartedly enjoyed this film because it seemed so original with the directors chosen style of storytelling which, as I mentioned before, I had never seen in a documentary. Also I didn’t read anything about the film before I watched it so I went into it pretty blind and I did not expect to see the killers themselves recreating the treacherous acts they committed against innocent people who were forced to die by horrible means, and this made the film so real that it was hard not to imagine these extreme acts of violence as they are described in detail.
In my opinion the director’s purpose for making this film was to help give a look at the conditions of living under a murderous dictatorship that almost resembles an eastern, modern-day Nazi party that has been able to withhold power for decades. I also think that the director was trying to show that even though these systematic killings have subsided the government agenda is still steeped in a deep hatred for communists and is fed to the public through rhetoric based on promoting the extermination of every last communist. The director is definitely portraying these atrocities in an ethical and responsible way by leaving it mainly up to the real, experienced executioners to tell their own story, which according to them is surprisingly very truthful. To my knowledge he seemed to just capture whatever the perpetrators wanted to reveal about their pasts and presents the material in a present tense by not cutting to sit-down interviews discussing the past or any kind of historical overview. The interviewees are allowed to tell the stories which ever way they want, at their own pace, as the director does a minimal amount of directing and more of just capturing the killers’ own words with the occasional question to help elaborate on a particular matter. The only authority that is ever shown in the film is the ultra conservative paramilitary group that is comprised of fascists that were originally spawned from the death squads and continue to spew their hatred of communists out into the public. However they do seem to be very popular and well respected in the community but this is more than likely mostly comprised of a collective fear among civilians who may risk death buy trying to go against the paramilitary group. This group reminded me of the Nazi party so much because of the constant strong-arming, the disapproval of certain people’s individualities, the belief that they are more superior, and the use of political rallies to publicly incite ethnically and politically charged violence through hateful rhetoric. The actual government however is never actually depicted in the film but instead are only mentioned several times as being in control of all of the gangsters who were actually committing these meaningless atrocities.
The Act of Killing was a very heavy film to watch, and an equally disturbing look into the minds of mass murderers.
ReplyDeleteOppenheimer, knowing full well that Anwar and his men are treated like heroes for ridding Indonesia of Communists and people who challenge their ideals, offer them a chance to reenact and glorify their actions by making a film. I don't believe that Oppenheimer tried as best as he could to be responsible and ethical in the documentation as much as he could have. Oppenheimer decided to shift the focus from the dead victims to the victorious murderers. "History is written by the victors." He does, yes, get Anwar to become conscious and regretful of his crimes through the reenactment of his victims' torture and death. But, in the end, the film does not serve the dead people's interests nor the interests of the Indonesian government, but the interests of the filmmaker to spread information of human atrocities and call into question governments' actions. Subjects in the film, such as Herman Soto, question why America has not been severely punished for their own genocides as Germany has. I believe one of Oppenheimer's intentions, after he filmed the material, was to make sure Indonesia's history was a reflection of America's, his own country, actions, and to demand responsibility.
I thought that the film was very bizarre, like everyone else in the class. The gangster film noir scenes, the female dancers and Soto all dressed in colorful colors as they dance by waterfalls and giant fishes, and the reenactments of torture filmed through flames, all these images were vivid and dreamlike. The filmmakers also edited out most of the sound to make the scenes stand out even more. I could barely hear the screams of the tortured. Is that what Anwar did? Did he muffle those screams, did he tune it out as he beheaded them?
The part for me where the director Josh Oppenheimer shows Authority is when Anwar says he knows how his victims felt when he experiences a simulated torture. Josh speaks up and tells him the people you tortured felt far worse. This hits a note with Anwar and for the first time you see him break down and cry. This is towards the end of the film and from that point he feels sick about what he has done.
ReplyDeleteI think this film serves its purpose to the youth of Indonesia and how the Communists came to an end. Early on in the film a guy from the newspaper is interviewed about how he interrogated people and the questions that were asked. HE SAYS that he changed the people being questioned answers to make them look bad.
I think it also serves to make the gangsters in the film to open up and talk about how they feel about the mass killings. I see them relive their younger days as they reminisce about these stories. In the beginning of the film you see the enjoyment in them talking about these atrocities. By the end of the film Anwar is sick to his stomach, literally, for the horrific events being brought back in his memory.
I think Josh’s approach to the material in this film is to identify the truth of what happened in these mass killings. There are some interesting points shown in the film about history and how it’s written. Plain and simple the winners write history. Some important information always goes undiscovered. The ugly truths of war and important details are always left out. While I think the director was ethically responsible on some part of the film he was equally irresponsible on other parts. I didn’t like the heaven portrayal and the gift of a medal idea thing shown in the film. I don’t even know how to describe that scene. The man dressed in drag was unnecessary no further comment. I was ok with trying to find the distinction between sadism and cruelty. The two men go back and forth a little about the difference between them. I am taking the side that there is no difference between them and the way these people were brutally killed wasn’t right.
Oppenheimer does not belabor the point of portraying the “gangsters” as ruthless, heartless thugs because they blatantly (and proudly) identify themselves as such. Yet, his film showcases the work of mass-murderers, largely based in first-hand accounts of their crimes recounted in a celebratory, positive, almost bawdy manner. Thus, it would be easy to argue that because Oppenheimer is not utilizing an accusatory voice or placing a judgmental emphasis on the characters' actions, he is providing them with an outlet through which they can further bask in the glory of their crimes.
ReplyDeleteInitially, this appears to be what the thugs are using the film for. They attempt to portray their work as killers in a creative way that, to them, is almost like a game. The country celebrates them. They are proud of themselves. And they recall stories of their killings with joy and humor. Oppenheimer's ethical approach is complex and utilizes a seemingly trusting collaboration with his subjects, but also a subtle provocation of empathy (or apology?) on their parts. He allows us to see the killers as human beings, rather than two-dimensional monsters (which would be a safer approach). It is discomforting to feel any empathy for people who have committed such heinous crimes, yet the story would lack depth if its characters weren't portrayed as human.
The stylistic choice that stood out to me the most was Oppenheimer's decision to not use music for the majority of the film. Music has great power to manipulate a viewer's emotions and influence how action is portrayed onscreen. Without it, the dialogue and behavior of the characters is more open-ended and, in many instances, it feels uncomfortable not to have music reenforcing the often horrific content that unfolds.
The final reenactment in which Congo puts himself in the position of his victim (and later, when he watches the scene) displays the repressed (or delusional) impact of mass-murder on the mass-murderer. As we watch him become physically ill returning to the site at which he had killed hundreds of people, we do not pity him (for what he is experiencing is nothing compared to the pain he inflicted), but we do see him as a pitiful figure who has never put himself in the shoes of his victims until he is in the safety and comfort of a role-reversal acting scene. It is difficult to categorize the film as an awareness piece of crimes that were justified by a nation, nor can we exclusively call it a cathartic work for the benefit of the killers. But I think it's safe to claim that it is a work of many realizations – the realization that military choices often must be justified by claims heroic glory in order to mask their true horror, the realization that often the worst punishment for a crime must come from oneself, and the realization that humans (not monsters) are capable of unthinkable atrocities. Few things are more destabilizing than being unable to completely separate oneself from that which we hate.
With the topic of genocide, my expectations for this documentary were far from what the documentary ended up being. With reenactments being directed on screen, to me, it seemed like a backwards approach to explore something so devastating. I think the reenactments weren’t what impacted me the most from the film, but rather what came directly after them. My brain just couldn’t make sense of seeing a violent reenactment being played out on screen, and when the scene cuts Anwar runs up behind a crying child and hugs him. The crying children put things more into perspective than anything else. A similar example is when Anwar’s grandson hurt the duck and makes him apologize to it. I couldn’t wrap my head around how a human being could conduct these killings, but then go on with his life, and further more feel sorry for this wounded duck. Everything was so backwards. I struggled to comprehend the ruthless nature of the gangsters because everything seemed very stylized and set up that I couldn’t bring myself to a place of thinking “wow, this actually happened”.
ReplyDeleteI feel that if the director wanted me to feel for the communists who suffered so greatly he wouldn’t have made choices such as the graphic voice over of how they killed people, while one of the gangsters is walking around the mall with his family looking at ellipticals and clothing. I was in the film, but I was also very taken out of the film. I do think this is symbolic of how all the gangsters feel internally, so maybe that’s the intention of the director, to show how detached from the whole issue they are, and the repression of their actions.
What I really did like however, and felt like was extremely affective and made up for my wishy washy demeanor towards the film, was when the director made Anwar watch back footage. Also, I don’t know if it was Oppenheimer’s choice to have Anwar be the victim for the scene where they are going to wire his head off, but it was a very “put yourself in their shoes” moment, and I thought Anwar’s response was genuine, and that will begin the process of him conjuring up all repressed feelings towards the killings from the past. If Oppenheimer accomplished anything I think it might be having Anwar work through the past, and for me as a viewer that is satisfying because something was accomplished.
I feel in this movie I am not really sure the directors approach. At first he made everyone seen very happy and positive and just spreading some knowledge of the situation that occurred in their history. As the movie went on he showed the main guys sense of struggles he goes through mentally with nightmares about his killings and things. All at the same time he makes them come off as a bit crazy. His approach I feel was very open for you to take it however you wanted. One thing he did do is make sure he caught as many messed up stories and explanations of how killings were done to make them look bad like they were proud of it but all at once some of them it seemed to really bother them. I don’t think Oppenheimer showed much authority other then how he wanted the story put together. I feel like the interest of this favors the guys in it. It seemed like how they wanted it to be with the stories and what not is how it ended up. They were proud of what they did essentially. I dont think the welfare was really in account honestly. I dont know this film gave me a lot of mixed feelings and readings.
ReplyDeleteUnethical. ...unethical. ......unethical. In viewing this film through the lens of ethics, I vote all methods unethical. Not only do I find murder to be an unethical act, I also think creating glimpses into the minds of murderers to be downright unnerving. I'm sort of at a loss for words after seeing The Act of Killing. I have ugly feelings about the presented elements, but it would be "unethical" for me to pretty them up with appropriate words.
ReplyDeleteThese men that call themselves gangsters are chronicling and re-enacting how they murdered innocent bystanders. The gangsters showed how they tortured those that gave them a hard time when they tried cunning them out of money and sentimental possesions. They even go as far to illustrate what they saw until the very last breath of their tortured victims.
Even more disturbing, the makeup choices are used to show wounds and scarring. This makes me feel the gangsters do so to intentionally wear these injuries a a badge of honor...like this is what we saw on our victims and we're proud......and let's not even delve into the brief flash of self-coerced emotion that unsuccessfully attempted to show us there may actually be heart in the body of "non-ethics."
I am so done after seeing Acts of Killing. Overall, I guess it's a good choice to teach on an ethics platform......since we can all be very successful if we do just the opposite of everything we saw. This movie really cooks my goose.......and not in a good way!
I found this his approach to telling this story to be interesting. It was hard to watch at times because of how casually this horrific violence is. At first when I was watching it I was very bothered by this. I was upset because I didn’t want to hear their side of the story. I didn’t want the people that committed these murders to be humanized. When Anwar was showing them where he would kill people and he was demonstrating with the wire I was appalled. I couldn’t believe what I was watching because he was laughing and smiling.
ReplyDeleteBut I think for all the reasons I didn’t like it at first make it so powerful. You begin to realize that the reason it’s being discussed in such causal terms is because the people are almost numb. The killed so many people that it’s so normal for them. Adi discusses while they are getting their makeup put on that you come up with excuses for why you are killing. I thought that was interesting and it should how powerful the government propaganda was that convinced them the communist were bad people.
I do think Oppenheimer shows some authority in this film. In the end he decides what stays in the film and what doesn’t when editing. Also he was the one who decided to present this story in this way. But I also feel he shows some authority through the few times we hear him ask questions. Although it doesn’t happen that often in the film, his questions are pretty important ones. The questions were powerful enough to shift the way we are seeing something portrayed. For example when he asks Anwar and Adi to speak openly about how they feel about the propaganda.
I think this film can be impactful for everyone. Mainly because of the idea of propaganda. I think it brings up some important questions about how people can be influenced because of what they are told by people in power.
Oppenheimer’s “The Act of Killing” was a very interesting film, in my opinion. I’m not very convinced that I know what the director’s approach to the film was. I believe he was mainly documenting people’s past lives, and therefore, the past itself. It not only examined the past, it also showed the present, and how these gangsters are now. I was very moved when Anwar was speaking about the Nazis, because from the very beginning of the film when the historical facts popped up onto the screen, Nazis came to mind. And just like taking over power in the government, both the gangsters and Nazis seemed to grow comfortable to killing. Joseph Stalin once said, “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” I believe these gangsters could identify with that. One of the men, Adi I believe, said something along the lines in the film that, “You have to find excuses for why you kill.” I believe after prolonged routine, like with anything, killing becomes a norm for these men, and that’s why they are laughing while reenacting death scenes. That was the unnerving part in the movie for me.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Oppenheimer being responsible and ethical in the movie, I believe he was. He was showing the psychological state of mind these gangsters are now in and what they did in their past lives. Some people may have found it unethical for some reason because of how nonchalant these gangsters in the movie were. Is that the director’s fault, though? Also, I believe a big thing that gets overlooked is the fact that Oppenheimer wants these men to recreate scenes for a reason. I believe everyone’s reason on why the director puts these reenactments in differ, but my belief is that the director wanted to reverse the rolls for some of these men. I think he wanted them to see things from a different perspective, whether it worked or not. Because I believe this, I must believe that the director was responsible and ethical. He attempted to do something instead of simply filming murderers and about how they enjoyed their past.
I also believe that Oppenheimer showed authority in this film, mainly by asking specific questions to Anwar and the other men. He doesn’t talk very often, but it still shows some authority in this film. Furthermore, he ultimately chooses what stays and what goes into the film.
Last but not least, another interesting thing that I noticed that the director chose to do was to leave out background music. This, I think, is a very conscious decision that the filmmaker made. It almost creates unbiased moments throughout the film where you have time to think for yourself; you get to observe for yourself and form your own conclusions instead of having a soundtrack influence your perspective. Overall, I thought this film was very powerful and filmed very well. I think anyone, especially people of Western culture, would find this film interesting, because of the fact that Anwar and other men refer heavily on our own idols and movie stars. As far as how it will impact the viewer, it is all subjective. Everyone will have their own opinion, especially with this film.