Skip to main content

It’s all about finding the right excuse.

The Act of Killing
(2012)

When I reviewed Holy Motors I mentioned how the weight of expectations and can affect one’s appreciation of a film. You can’t go too wrong if you anticipate very little, but a widely heralded masterpiece has much to live up to. The Act of Killing has topped many critics’ Best of 2013 lists, and it arrives with the validation of the significant and growing impact it has made in Indonesia. There, it appears that a landscape in which genocide has been officially endorsed for decades may be on the verge of change. Joshua Oppenheimer’s achievement is a considerable one, and his film (he is reticent of the strictures of the term documentary) is an often-powerful one. Yet I’m wary of the suggestion that the picture somehow constitutes “better” art due to the real change it has instituted in the world. In its longer Director’s Cut form at least, The Act of Killing is frequently an indulgent sprawl. The decision to allow the perpetrators ample opportunity to indict themselves screams out for a more disciplined hand to guide and focus the final edit. Perhaps the shorter cut remedies this, as judicious pruning of the re-enactments (and performance pieces) might have ensured a more rewardingly concise path to the ambiguous final scene.


No doubt Oppenheimer’s achievement in editing down 1,200 hours of film to fewer than 3 should be recognised, but I can’t help think he needed someone more ruthless tapping him on the shoulder. That is, if he wished to justify eschewing the classical documentary form as he has here. Aside from the introductory text Act is almost elliptical in providing context regarding the Indonesian regime, for which it has received criticism from some quarters. To his credit, Oppenheimer has cogently presented his case that this wasn’t the path he wished to follow; what became important was the now of these people and what it means to Indonesia now. As such, Act’s achievement as a piece of filmmaking is in drawing out, with awareness or otherwise, truths from those who committed these horrors. While Oppenheimer says he made the film with the reaction of the Indonesian population in mind, the western eye can nevertheless readily recognise the twin pulls of denial (that any crime was committed) and tacit admission/confession (the very act of engaging with a filmmaking platform, even leaving aside personal dramatisation).


Oppenheimer’s analogy to what it would be like if the Nazis had won WWII and senior SS officers could be found boasting of their acts 40 years later is an appropriate one; it is not so much the justifications or acknowledgements of guilt that are surprising (they are not; they accord with the responses one might expect of one who find the means to live with doing something terrible) but that Oppenheimer has happened across an environment where such admissions remain couched in official endorsements; one where those who have done these things are officially heroes.


At least, that was the case until the groundswell of opinion since the film was first shown in Indonesia. I mentioned context, and that I can see why Oppenheimer has taken his chosen path. I don’t necessarily agree that it is wholly successful, however. He expects the viewer to accept random elements, or repetitive restaging sequences. And these intermittently hold power, but I’d argue that the kind of background he eruditely provides on the extensive Blu ray release supplementary materials is at least as relevant as his more distracted inclusions. Ironically, the only high profile western feature to address this period (that comes to mind), Year of Living Dangerously, also manages to present only a murky insight into the Indonesian political landscape.


Act’s introductory subtitles establish Oppenheimer’s subjects and how they came to positions of authority in the wake of the 1965 military coup that brought President Suharto to power. Those who opposed the military regime were accused of being communists and, within a year over one million people had been murdered (with the aid and endorsement of western governments; this is the only overt reference to such complicity in the documentary and it is curious that Oppenheimer cites interviews with US officials involved, ones that do not make the cut). The film follows (in the main) a trio of paramilitary gangsters (fond of citing “free men” as the derivation of “gangster”), two of whom were enlisted to lead the death squads, (Anwar Congo, the central figure in the documentary, and Adi Zulkadry; Herman Koto is younger, and Oppenheimer fails to clarify if he has done similarly to his peers). It is noted that these men have “been in power and persecuted opponents ever since”. They were “movie theatre gangsters” who loved films and were recruited for their capacity for violence (and, in their words, were inspired by American films of the ‘50s and ‘60s in terms of methods of violence and inflicting same).


Oppenheimer found that, without exception, those interviewed would proudly tell tales of what they had done; as the process evolved, and as he struggled to understand this attitude, the scenario encompassed recreations of the deeds (arising from their inclinations towards movies and theatre). It’s this, besides the bold admissions, that sets the documentary apart; a strange and disturbing melange of the raw and amateur, of gangster movie riffs on their tortures and killings and of extravagant musical number performances. This is juxtaposed with various levels of denial and admissions of guilt, most clearly seen in Anwar’s transition from cheerfully recounting his methods at a killing ground (“It was like we were killing… happily”) to his return there in the closing minutes; his commentary is now punctuated by involuntary retching.


And yet even there we find ambiguity. Is this a genuine response, or a show for the cameras by a man beginning to realise the unsympathetic light in which he has portrayed himself. Oppenheimer clearly thinks the former is the case, but empathy is rarely glimpsed in the film’s leading figures (ironically it may be the less articulate Herman who carries the most, since he so fully enters into the spirit of his acting roles).


The director appears now quite versed in deflecting criticisms of a light-touch approach to his subjects. During interviews he notes how he tackled Anwar when the latter suggested he now knew how those he tortured felt, following the staged re-enactments. Oppenheimer is also open about his possible failures of judgement in some cases. One of the actors, who played a victim, recounts the murder of a relative; the director admits that the connection was only made when footage was reviewed (the actor has since died). He adds that now he might not include such footage on principle. It’s this kind of understanding that has the potential of both dragging the film off course and adding crucial context to scenes that leave us doubtful of his choices. Werner Herzog suggests the director has captured subject matter that comes along only once every 50 years. Which may be true, but that doesn’t mean some of the director’s choices don’t undercut a film of such lofty status.


The contrast between Adi and Anwar, at least as Oppenheimer wishes to present them, is one of a man who has inured himself against the horrors of what he has done by wrapping himself in the colours of state endorsement and one who cannot escape the nightmares that result from a pricking conscience. The former professes to no guilt or regret, and his clarity over the consequences of making the film is piercing (“The whole story will be reversed. Not 180 degrees… 360 degrees”). Adi’s attititude is not to kick the hornet’s nest, believing that “Even if everything you’re finding out is true, it’s not good”. He shows a touch of bravado by responding “I’m ready” to the suggestion he might be called to the Hague to answer for war crimes. But he also parries accusations with examples of US history where justice has not been served (such as Guantanamo Bay). His clarity is perhaps more frightening, because it is so sharp; “We were the cruel ones” he says, initiating the conversation with his fellows. He makes short shrift of a newspaper man who claims ignorance of their deeds (“If you didn’t know, I’d be shocked”) and openly addresses the thought process required to live with such acts; “It’s all about finding the right excuse”. Since killing is the worst crime one can do, the key is to find a way not to feel guilty; for Adi it comes with the rationalisation that “After all, morality is relative”.


Oppenheimer has since stated that he knew Adi would hate the film. Anwar, with whom he maintains contact, has said that it is honest and he supports it (although, since it suggests remorse on his part, however reluctant, it makes a good defensive posture). The re-enactments involving Anwar and Herman find the film at its most heightened and intense, but the more Oppenheimer repeats such scenes the less powerful they become. Anwar’s journey from voicing cosmetic disappointments (with how something was staged, or how he acted out a scene) to his inability to fully act out his own torture and execution is (apparently) revealing. But it doesn’t resonate as strongly as the sequence in which he repeatedly stabs Herman’s “child” (a soft toy) after Herman attempts to “bribe” him. (Herman is in drag during this scene; he is in drag frequently during the documentary. While Oppenheimer has explained this as indicative of Herman’s love of theatre in interviews, this is an example of the director choosing to emphasise something completely free of the context necessary to justify such attention.)


Also noticeable on a number of occasions is that some of the most chilling moments are almost tangential to the main characters we follow, which led me to question whether Oppenheimer’s had set out his store to maximum effect. The major “set piece” finds Pancasila Youth members, their wives and children, staging the massacre of a village. Oppenheimer films it with an eye for classic movie mayhem. But it’s the casual, unguarded bragging of one of the leaders to his men of how “If they were pretty I’d rape them all” rather than the shouts of “Chop off their heads” during the re-enactments that persists in the mind. Likewise, the fawning regional TV station show host who interviews the leader of the Youth. The latter states that they do not fear revenge “because we’d exterminate them all”, to cheers from the audience of Youth members. Behind the scenes, technicians speculate how killing all those people sent those on the death squads crazy (and made them rich). This is more impactful than a subsequent garish death scene where Herman feeds Anwar his own entrails and genitals; indeed, once we reach that point Oppenheimer has uncomfortably extended the performance aspect of the piece from disturbing curiousity to over-inflated extravagance.


Past master documentarians Wernor Herzog and Errol Morris came on board the project as executive producers, bowled over by Oppenheimer’s achievement. They wax philosophical over how Act straddles the borderline between documentary and fiction, and the surrealistic attempts to reaffirm lies through fresh inventions (which serve in Anwar’s case to at least partially expose those lies). While I would agree with the comment (in respect of what constitutes good documentary form) that “facts do not constitute truths”, there is also a stage where Oppenheimer’s remove from the picture affects its effectiveness. While I have some sympathy for Morris in his disagreement with the critic who complained he knew even less about the situation in Indonesia than when the documentary started, somewhere along the way the director takes his eye off the road. He recovers with the final scene but this in itself feels a little too symmetrical, a little too neat.


It’s indicative of such an oblique encounter that the ensuing conversation revolves heavily around both the facts of the regime and the facts regarding the filmmaker. In the case of the latter, it may not always be a good idea to make the maker a tangible part of the process as it runs the risk of becoming a distraction. But Oppenheimer appears to be halfway there already, identifying the falseness of the classic fly-on-the-wall approach in any given conversation. It might have taken some rethinking but it is pertinent given the number of questions and continuity issues, that this took eight years to make. (Other anecdotes are merely arresting filler, such as how the BBC rejected the project with the rejoinder “I don’t want my strand awash with atrocity”).


It becomes a question of how well the film stands up devoid of supporting materials, interviews and articles. Perhaps there’s an acknowledgement of this in the packaging of such additions to view via bit-torrent. Arguably, those whose interest is piqued will find out more. This is a story, or a conversation that has only just begun (the director’s next project is a companion piece).  Oppenheimer (and co-directors Anonymous – who like many of the crew goes unnamed for fear of reprisals – and Christine Cynn) has created a piece that has already enacted change (in Indonesia the issue now has a forum, and Anwars will no longer be found boasting of their deeds) although firmer gestures such as tribunals appear to be in the realms of speculation. Errol Morris opines that, unlike Oppenheimer, “I think we learn nothing”; he may be correct, but their work as filmmakers testifies to their ability to bring recognition and change however fleeting.


Oppenheimer fitfully masters his themes in this “new form of documentary… of the imagination as opposed to everyday lives”. But he has made his strongest points repeatedly, well before his Director’s Cut reaches its over-extended conclusion. And, for one of such clear intelligence and erudition, his complaints of a pervading societal “Star Wars morality” come across as slightly ingenuous. As if he has tapped into something hitherto unexplored (when nothing could be further from the truth). Oppenheimer’s subject matter is striking and disturbing and his method of approaching it is, at least partially, equally compelling. But I came way wishing his grip on the material had been firmer.


****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas