I'll give some feedback.
Style - I felt the editing could have been much, much tighter, and that this would have helped focus the power of the film. The directors cut really was a slog at times, and you could feel the strain in the audience. There were far too many sections where it felt like someone had shot something they liked, but didn't have the discipline to think "this isn't relevant". E.g. the various shots in malls. All the footage of Herman wearing dresses. The scene at the restaurant. Herman's electoral campaign. The surreal dance scenes. Even lots of the footage they shot for the supposed film. Having seen much better edited documentaries such as The Imposter, Capturing the Friedmans, I feel that they developed a greater sense of exploratory momentum with their subjects. The Act of Killing fell very stop-start, and meandered between too many ideas - character study, modern political expose, historical political expose, surrealism, fly-on-the-wall cultural essay, and then the key one for me (and I'm sure the one that is getting the film attention) which was allowing Anwar to face the unconscious repression of his acts.
I would have opened not with the surreal dance segment, but with the TV interview segment with the girl presenter. To me, this succinctly encapsulated the present situation, the self-ascribed glamour of the killers, the continued ignorance, the continued aggression against communists (threatening to do the same to any of their children who now want to seek justice). It was a powerful scene, and showed just how repressed the emotions of these events have become. This was a great way to introduce Anwar. Then, I'd have focused solely on Anwar, Herman, and the third killer whose name I forget. Together, they seemed to represent three different ways of coping with the events - repression, denial, and acceptance.
On this level, the film spoke most strongly as just another illustration of the human condition. The messages I took from it were:
- A person's reality can always be manipulated or distorted to the level that terrible things can become rationalised.
- The human mind will then seek to reinforce that reality - through repression, denial or cold acceptance.
At this level, the Indonesian genocide became a mere context for the subject, rather than the subject itself.
The most powerful, and horrific point to the film, for me, was that Anwar did always have a conscience. At this level, the documentary became an extension of (better) documentaries exploring this theme such as the Stanley Milgram experiment, and Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment - ordinary people can be made to commit horrific acts.
I really do feel that this was the main point of the documentary - and not to simply show the world what happened in Indonesia. Were that the case, then much more detail could have been afforded to the running time in place of banal character study segments that were of little value. E.g. intercutting historical footage or survivor anecdotes to juxtapose the sheer horror with the complacent ignorance of the protagonists. Also, so much more could have been done to interrogate Anwar. The only challenge I noticed was Joshua reminding Anwar that the victims would have felt worse than he did in his reenactment, because they knew they were going to die whereas he knew he was safe. Anwar answers "but I really felt it". At this point, after two-and-a-half hours, I frustratingly realised that so much had been missed in terms of interviewing Anwar and the others more, to get more out of them. I suddenly wished that this had been a Louis Theroux interview based documentary.
Anwars eventual realisation and opening up of his clear (from the beginning) unconscious repression came too late for me. With tighter editing, I'd have liked to see a more linearly progressive build up to his realisation about half way into the documentary. From that point, it would have been much more interesting to see how he handled the filmmaking, his friends, and other events. I was told by Christine Cynn (co director) after the screening that he was a changed man because of this - and that infuriated me. For an investment of 2hrs 40mins I really wanted to see those changes - how he would have responded to things differently.
Overall I feel that the subject and reflection on the human condition was a very important one - but was too big for the filmmakers, who seemed to stumble upon it, to properly manage. They seemed too cautious rather than investigative, and not being sure what story to tell, just threw as many cuts in as possible hoping that within the mish-mash people could find what they wanted.
reply
share
optiplex
11 years ago
I agree with most of what rabbitmoon is saying besides the criticism that they should have been harder with their interviews. You can't forget that the documentary filmmakers have to be equally as terrified of these killers. They're already taking a very big risk just hanging around them. These people act out of impulse. You get on their bad side and you might not make it. Instead of giving them the hard hitting questions, the filmmakers guided Anwar into questioning himself. This helped make Anwar more accessible and open. He was friendly with Joshua. You could tell he had a warmth for him. This was a big element of how Joshua was able to get Anwar to face the atrocities he committed and was a brilliant move on the filmmaker's part. Had he grilled Anwar with questions he most likely would have made Anwar defensive. Instead, Anwar has no idea Joshua is trying to get him to atone for the suffering he has caused.
I do agree that the resolution of the director's cut took too long to get to. At one point I didn't think there was going to be any. They could have cut a lot of the torturing out. After a while it started to feel redundant.
reply
share
willowdada
11 years ago
For an investment of 2hrs 40mins I really wanted to see those changes - how he would have responded to things differently.
Rabbitmoon, in the beginning of the film Anwars is standing in a area where he murdered hundreds of people. He's wearing an absurd shirt that looks like it came from an airport in the Florida Keys. He is laughing about what he did, and is excited to show the viewer how to properly kill someone without having too much blood come out.
Cut to the last scene in the film - Anwars is taken back to that exact area and is now gagging and vomiting and can hardly speak.
If that incredibly powerful scene doesn't scream
regret, then I don't know what does. I don't need Louis Theroux holding my hand through a film that is painfully obvious by just observing the footage Oppenheimer captured.
reply
share
rabbitmoon
11 years ago
If that incredibly powerful scene doesn't scream regret, then I don't know what does.
Well then I can only infer that you don't know what screams regret. I didn't think that scene screamed regret at all. If anything it screamed
empathy - but even that isn't obvious.
If Josh had asked Anwar at that point "do you wish you hadn't done these killings?" I'm not at all convinced that Anwar would have said "yes, I really wish I hadn't, I deeply regret it".
Its more likely he would have said "Well we had to kill them, we were asked to, and the money was good. I just realise now how horrible it must have felt for them".
There is a big difference between
empathy and
caring. Which is why that scene, after two and half hours (in the directors cut), wasn't as climactic as I'd hoped for. It really doesn't prove anything, and it really
isn't obvious.
He may have just been showing what he thought the westerners wanted to see - you really don't know, because the footage is still ambiguous. This is why it should have been more clear and explicit - and you've proved my point entirely about how suggestible audiences are.
reply
share
subase
11 years ago
I agree with you rabbitmoon, the audience is entirely too suggestible. If they'd ever worked at a slaughterhouse, they would understand he was only feeling physical disgust, killing pigs who don't want to be killed is messy, doing the same to humans is no doubt messier.
But realistically I think it's too much to ask the director to give us deep insights into humanity, he made a documentary that didn't suck, that should be enough in our current climate.
At least he had the courage and decency to not foist a retarded interpretation into the film. I think he was just dumbfounded by their behavior and couldn't find anyone to explain it to him and just left it at that.
reply
share
corrinadylan
11 years ago
I would agree that the movie is slow at times and a bit of a mess. When Anwar and his cronies were first introduced, I understood why one review alluded to Hannah Arendt's notion of the "banality of evil." Superficially, the perpetrators of such extreme violence are incredibly boring. At best, they are uneducated gangsters who lack the foresight to recognize the consequences of reenacting their past triumphs Hollywood-style. Initially, I was ready to write off the movie as an excellent concept that suffered in execution, but ultimately I left the theatre with mixed feelings.
Some documentaries try to pigeonhole their subjects by taking the moral high ground, usually when the director stops observing the subjects filmed and starts dictating how they should be. What is so appealing about The Act of Killing is that it does exactly what is says it will: it shows a group of gangsters reinterpreting their glory days. Apart from the occasional probing question from an interviewer, the audience is led to believe that any cathartic moments are self-induced. The film is much more interesting and ironic when it is not some disingenuous director exposing his subjects, but the subjects who reveal themselves at varying states of self-awareness.
Throughout the film, the distinction between reality and fantasy is tenuous at best. When Anwar committed real crimes, he thought he was a movie star. He isn’t struck by the reality of his actions until he is acting them out in a movie. He also seems to be exorcising his demons by bringing his nightmares to life. Similarly, we see extras alternately laughing or crying after the camera stops rolling; participants objecting to how savage they may seem on screen while having no compunction about being savage off screen; and the media, past victims, and voters willingly contributing to the façade. Once you realize that politics is all a show, as well, a bunch of empowered gangsters filming their exploits seems less audacious. The most ironic twist of all is that the lack of music or careful editing throughout much of the film makes Anwar and friends less believable. At first, they seem like bad actors, and since no emotional narrative or soundtrack is telling us how to feel, we are indifferent. It’s as if we, too, need artifice to engender any feeling.
Of course, there are many messages that could be taken from the film. I think the lack of detail regarding historical context was intentional and convenient. Anwar et al. are free to rewrite history as they wish, and they allow us to view their story as part of a larger cycle of violence that is more specific to the human condition than to any one time or place. Sadism is normal in their world, and the film attempts to show that, at least to gangsters in Indonesia, it is normal in ours, as well.
reply
share
azzurra-ying
10 years ago
"The most ironic twist of all is that the lack of music or careful editing throughout much of the film makes Anwar and friends less believable. At first, they seem like bad actors, and since no emotional narrative or soundtrack is telling us how to feel, we are indifferent. It’s as if we, too, need artifice to engender any feeling. "
I don't know if there're that many layers to this film. I didn't need music or editing to believe the characters, who are fascinating in every appearance on screen. I hung onto every word they say. There's much more to be said, if anything. I don't even mind the mundane cityscape or surreal grassland scenes. It just shows Indonesia. It could be because I live in Singapore, a country close by enough that I experience some form of identification to the scenery, politics and history.
The film seems to be the first of its kind - to my limited knowledge of documentaries that is. The approach is so novel that probably every bit of the materials that came out of it is precious. I wouldn't be surprised if the director wanted to put even more in.
reply
share
dalldorfw
10 years ago
"- A person's reality can always be manipulated or distorted to the level that terrible things can become rationalised.
- The human mind will then seek to reinforce that reality - through repression, denial or cold acceptance"
Case in point; HLN viewers.
reply
share