MovieChat Forums > The Act of Killing (2012) Discussion > Oh, how we love to point fingers. . . to...

Oh, how we love to point fingers. . . to other murderers but ourselves.


The American political/war machine, although justifying mass murder through slick politicking and omnipresent mass media glorification, is just as guilty of such heinous acts; but not since FULL METAL JACKET has an American film-maker successfully implicated that machine through dark comedy and satire. THE ACT OF KILLING is a step in the right direction. But for many, I'm afraid that it misses the mark, the mark being one that induces frank and honest self-reflection. I can only hope that the majority of those who see this movie walk away without the hypocrisy that THE ACT OF KILLING displays on its immediate surface. It's okay to point fingers sometimes, but only if the act affords the audience a clear opportunity to shed its dissimulation and take a wide-eyed look at itself.

EDIT:

I forgot to mention another Kubrick masterpiece dealing with similar subject matter: PATHS OF GLORY. With this film, Kubrick managed to strip the audience of their hypocrisy by presenting a rather indistinguishable French military with English dialog. Some audience members (myself included), even after having viewed the film multiple times, have trouble implicating any specific military or political organization. The presentation allows for a more universal study on the justification of violence.

reply

Hmm, I have a few responses to what you wrote. I think Kubrick's disdain for systems generally was also implied within Dr Strangelove, and to a lesser extent A Clockwork Orange too (which was developing a similar theme to Full Metal Jacket in terms of the conditioning aspect).

With Act of Killing - I don't think the hypocrisy is in the film, but in perhaps some peoples reaction to the film. The film itself isn't really a film say "look how shocking these people are!" although that view is certainly available to be plucked by the audience at various moments. I saw it as a film about psychology more than anything else - the ability of the mind to repress something, and sidestep anxiety via denial, distortion and distraction. I honestly saw it as a film to go along with Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment, or Stanley Milgram's Obedience study (both of which spawned fascinating documentaries).

I feel that the political element is almost a red herring to the horrible truth about the human condition. I'll add to that though that I felt the filmmakers were quite sloppy in the handling of the themes - it seemed they were so excited with the explosion of interest that arose from filming the subject that they wanted to just throw it all in there. A tighter more focused edit would have really pushed the horror home for me - and made it more obvious to the audience too - "hey - you're no different! This is basic psychology we're showing you - not just some murderous tyrant!"

reply

Agreed, and that's what worries me. THE ACT OF KILLING, in blatantly pointing a finger towards an Indonesian mass-murderer with radical, right-wing political/military ties. That makes it difficult (if not impossible) for many audience-members to question and perhaps even implicate all murderous political/military systems (including our very own).

Kubrick had a way of encouraging his audience to take a good, hard look in the mirror. THE ACT OF KILLING, on the other hand, doesn't say "self-reflect". What it says on the immediate surface is, "look how shocking these people are!" Unfortunately, that's how a lot of people are going to view it.

As you said - and I must agree - it was definitely a well-implemented psycho-social experiment, but the political/military spin is more than a little hard to ignore. An inexcusable "red herring" as you say.

Again, a great step in the right direction, but I only wish it hit closer to home. Political systems the world over (tyrannical/dictatorial or otherwise) would only benefit from realizing the atrocities that they commit (namely murder). A so-called 'moment of clarity', they could all use.

reply

Haven't seen the movie yet but the overthrow of Sukarno was a CIA-sponsored coup and Suharto's men were given target lists of people to kill by the CIA. hope that's mentioned in the film. If not, that would be a travesty.



Leave the gun, take the cannoli...

reply

The United States government also annihilated around 200,000 Japanese people with the only 2 violent nuclear strikes ever recorded. Yes, they hit first; but childish arguments aside, this Indonesian tyrant isn't the only mass-homicidal human in the world. Amazing how we (especially our own government) continue to bang out justification for mass murder as if we don't murder at all, but we can so easily point fingers across the pond. We're like the suburbanite who protests deforestation in Brazil while chopping down his acre of grass every week. The film-makers of THE ACT OF KILLING should have been more self-aware. A film like this doesn't go unnoticed; and as a result, it's going to fuel a large portion of the very same hate that it ironically seeks to stamp out. People have a knack for dismissing their own transgressions while implicating others for transgressions shared. THE ACT OF KILLING can be interpreted as a universal wake-up call, or it can be interpreted as a pointed accusation. Unfortunately for many, especially the intolerant bigots and political fanatics who believe they are intrinsically right and just, this documentary will induce the latter interpretation. Placing this documentary in a foreign context, then trivializing that context through psycho-social manipulation (specifically the genre-fare which is used to stage Anwar's movies), doesn't exactly scream "Hey audience, take a look at yourselves!" I wonder if the film-makers ever considered posing similar opportunities to Western political/military leaders, then documenting them in all of their pride and glee.

reply

I agree 100%. The more time passes since I saw this film, the more it infuriates me.

Like you say, the main problem here is that 98% of the population will be like Anwar (the point that the film doesn't ever push) - they will use denial, distortion and distraction to make themselves feel as if "they're ok". In the meantime, they'll (stupidly, and again like Anwar) develop even more of a xenophobic attitude.

The irony of the film is that most people will be seeing a reflection of themselves, the tragedy is that they won't realise it.

reply

"The irony of the film is that most people will be seeing a reflection of themselves, the tragedy is that they won't realize it."

Couldn't have said it better. Thanks for summing it up.

reply

Yeah, Pearl Harbor is just a "childish arguement."

When you commit the initial act of war, you accept the brutal consequences.

reply

Yeah, Pearl Harbor is just a "childish arguement."

When you commit the initial act of war, you accept the brutal consequences

Civilians--the A-bomb victims--didn't start the war.

________________________
This signature has been deleted by the poster

reply

The nuclear weapons were dropped to prevent a full scale invasion of Japan, who were going to continue fighting. In fact it took TWO in order for Japan to surrender. Have you no knowledge on this subject?

reply

The nuclear weapons were dropped to prevent a full scale invasion of Japan, who were going to continue fighting. In fact it took TWO in order for Japan to surrender. Have you no knowledge on this subject?

This is actually false. Japan was already defeated and had initiated peace overtures that were ignored by the U.S. state.

For more, see, e.g., http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/08/anthony-gregory/hiroshima-nagasaki- and-the-us-terror-state/.

________________________
This signature has been deleted by the poster

reply

Oh and how do you know did you work for the CIA, why would the CIA care about anything in the dung heap that is Indonesia, please tell me, what women and children were on their hit lists. I know CIA is involved with such things sometimes but honestly when where and what are you talking about please elaborate because I'd like to know more.

But Seriously Your Opinion Is Wrong

reply

Ex-agents say CIA compiled death lists for Indonesians:
http://www.namebase.org/kadane.html

It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "


A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present
by William Blum

Z magazine , June 1999

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

China, 1945-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

Italy, 1947-48:
Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.

Greece, 1947-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.

Philippines, 1945-53:
U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

South Korea, 1945-53:
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.

Albania, 1949-53:
The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

Germany, 1950s:
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

Iran, 1953:
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.

Middle East, 1956-58:
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.

Indonesia, 1957-58:
Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.
British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.

Vietnam, 1950-73:
The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.
Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

Cambodia, 1955-73:
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.

The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:
In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.

Brazil, 1961-64:
President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.

Dominican Republic, 1963-66:
In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.
Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.
Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.

Cuba, 1959 to present:
Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.
The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.

Indonesia, 1965:
A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "

Chile, 1964-73:
Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.

Greece, 1964-74:
The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.
It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.
Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans."
George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.

East Timor, 1975 to present:
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian ar

reply

uh.. this was a universal exploration of political persecution---violence--- and the systems of propaganda, criminal syndicates and personal psychology that enable it. a person who comes away only with an indictment of the specific Indonesian dynamic is missing out.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087239/

reply

The dynamic involved here is that of a powerful friend training, supplying, protecting, funding, and providing lists of people to be murdered to a gang of homicidal maniacs. Those people were carefully nurtured, back from the point when they first began idolizing Hollywood gangster films. The "domino effect" was in fully operative. The US was doing everything possible to prevent the spread of communism. This was a gang who could do their dirty work for them in a country that had a huge number of citizens sympathetic to communism - which to the average working man in Indonesia meant having a job, having enough to provide for their families and forcing rich people contribute a fair share their mostly ill-gotten wealth to society. It's certainly not a "specific Indonesian dynamic", nor did I imply that it was - quite the opposite - as the list of worldwide interventions above amply demonstrates. The dynamic of these crooks running around boasting about their mass murders could not possibly happen without the protection of powerful friends. Those creeps would overrun and slaughtered in a day for their crimes. How can you ignore the role of the US in this and so many other horrors?



Leave the gun, take the cannoli...

reply

To be clear, I'm not challenging anything you say there. Anticommunism became a platform to excuse countless brutalities and the US was often instrumental. We replace it now with self-perpetuating hysteria about Islam, more or less.

My perception of the film is that the makers of it kept the background information about Indonesia to a minimum, so the audience can see it as human behavior that could eventuate anywhere in the right circumstances. Make it about Indonesian corruption or US culpability and the immediacy becomes diluted. It should be obvious to any thoughtful viewer that the US was tacitly endorsing mass slaughter.

at the same time, we can recall Stalin and say that deadly corruption and mass killing is not exclusive to any single ideology or government... it's more about abuses of power and lack of empathy or remorse.

roel, I'm just making general comments on this film and not replying to you specifically. my comments aren't even that original... i think I'm making a pretty common observation that almost anyone who liked the movie might agree with.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087239/

reply

I couldn't finish watching - became very bored with these run-of-the-mill fascist stooges ("the banality of evil"). I heard the director on the radio talking about how they were suffering and broken down, etc. I didn't see that at all. In fact, the fat guy looked extraordinarily youthful and they all seemed remarkably untroubled. If the fat guy participated, he must be in his mid-sixties at the youngest - didn't look a day over forty to me. Gradually they begin to mouth some halfhearted, disingenuous words of contrition. who cares? I want to know how they continue to get away with threatening people, shaking them down and evading justice. The reason they don't stress the US connection is the same reason these things are allowed to happen in the first place - power. I only heard one vague reference to something about "Western backed". If it doesn't cover how this was allowed to happen, how these freaks are still being protected (US has three bases in Indonesia and actively trains the military in "counterterrorism" (ie. justice for those mf'ers), it's essentially a whitewash, IMHO.



Leave the gun, take the cannoli...

reply

[deleted]

Hey Roell, Anwar actually has a strong arc, but it doesn't really get rolling until the final act. If you didn't see that last few scenes, you missed the whole impact of the film. One of my critiques is that they could have lost 20-30 min of redundancy in the first half, although the chilling casualness and good humor in those segments is what sets up the ending. Everything from the reenactment of the burning of the village to the final shot had me mesmerized and horrified, while early on, it felt a bit tedious. But again, I think that was a valid film making choice.

reply

LOL every movie with a theme like this has a thread started like this one. We get it America has done bad things. Every time a film talks about genocide or mass murder in some backwater part of the third world it's good to have it pointed out on IMDB that America is either responsible for it or has done the exact same thing. It's mostly pseudo-intellectual political rhetoric spewed as some sort of profound revelation on the part of the OP like they know something no one else does when in fact everyone knows it and most don't care.

reply

A shame, isn't it? So many don't care because so many believe they are righteously preeminent, when oftentimes they are actually presumptuous, apathetic sycophants who take stabs at the attitudes and behaviors of others without a little honest self-reflection. Every movie with a theme like this has a knack for reviving discussion among those who care and those who don't, whether they "get it" or not.

Be gone, troll. Your smarmy cynicism has no power here.

reply

@lmtopeka

You actually sound proud of yourself for not caring.

Is this because you are from the U.S and its some kind of defense mechanism?...because a lot of us really do care, and feel that everytime "a movie with a theme like this (LOL)",comes out its necassary for some introspection, because the U.S government is STILL murdering and destroying innocent lives.

What they have just done in the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan (in the name of "freedom" and "protecting the U.S from terror") is unforgiveable.

reply

@op8

It's not that I am proud that I don't care it's that I just don't care. The U.S. government has been killing people since it was founded. So has every other powerful government on the planet. Here is MY POINT though it gets old to read on here about every atrocity somehow directly or indirectly caused by the USA. Anyone who has ever killed a communist can indirectly say the USA was at fault but why is only the USA pointed out? All of western Europe supported these people also and were also indirectly responsible yet Europeans like to act like since ww2 they haven't done anything like this. This is how the world works. The communists have killed millions of innocents too. It's life if I cried over every innocent person killed since forever than I would have no time for anything else. I liked the movie it was informative that's all I take from movies because I am American and I have done nothing to anyone so I don't feel guilty for anything that happens anywhere because I have zero power over it.

reply

I think the majority think although the u.s went overboard during the cold war with it's anti-communism frenzy, communism was and remains a violent ideology that wants to destroy capitalism/capitalists/the west.

Same with WWII and the racial supremacy of japan and Nazi Germany.

These aren't little 'differences in opinion', one side wants to either subjugate or destroy the other.

The idea that the U.S would just allow an ideology that wanted to destroy almost everything the U.S stands for 'grow' is dumb. Saying that, as an intellectual exercise in differing governance and trade systems it's a big shame, but we shouldn't confuse an interesting idea, with the life and death struggle for existence it was felt to be at the time.

reply

D.C. Collins -- I'm with you all the way. You're one of the few posters that even makes any sense.

IMO, most of the previous posters are dissecting it more than it's supposed to be. Quite frankly, some of those posts sound like rambling, pretentious jabber.

The director, Oppenheimer, even disclaims in an Director's Introduction (in some versions, including the one I saw) that the film is an examination at the human level. What might come out of this process is an observation on the nature of evil; how it is engendered, how a person could be capable of it.

The filmmakers' expectation is that not every viewer will have a rich understanding, if any, of Indonesian history. While every viewer should inherently possess a human sensitivity--an ability to react in a human way. By watching this film, one may get an idea of the causes by which some people kill, however unjustified it is. For example, Anwar describes how he would have no compunction with killing someone if money was involved. On the other hand, there are moments where we somewhat experience the effects that killing has on victims, most notably in the Kampung Kolam village reenactments. Incidentally, this is one of the depictions that is powerful enough to stir Anwar. So, not only is the documentary that we are watching potentially having an impact on us, the viewers, but the filming within the documentary is having an impact on everybody involved.

Even during the Kampung Kolam reenactments, Anwar broods over the implications of pillaging:

What I regret...honestly, I never expected it would look this awful...but then I saw the women and children. Imagine those children's future. They've been tortured. Now their houses will be burned down. What future do they have? They will curse us for the rest of their lives. This was so very, very, very...


No one's sentiments are kept secret in this film. The human condition is raw and exposed in 'The Act of Killing'.

reply

[deleted]

A curious silence.

~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

reply

Agreed, and that's what worries me. THE ACT OF KILLING, in blatantly pointing a finger towards an Indonesian mass-murderer with radical, right-wing political/military ties. That makes it difficult (if not impossible) for many audience-members to question and perhaps even implicate all murderous political/military systems (including our very own).


All I've really gotten from your posts on this film is that the producers should have made the movie about what you wanted them to make it about. You apparently don't believe that a film about specific atrocities that occurred in a specific place should be about those specific atrocities in that specific place. The film should be about all atrocities in all places for all time.

Fine. But maybe you should go and make that movie. And when you're done, there will be no need for anyone to ever make a film about any mass atrocities ever again, because you will have covered all the bases. You likely will have also made the most generic, flavorless, boring (and presumably, misanthropic) film about human atrocities anyone could ever devise.

By your logic, there should be no films about Hitler, or Mao, or Idi Amin--not unless we can all "look in the mirror" about how we're all to blame (but mostly Americans). You can self-flagellate about the inherent evil of humankind all you like. I've got no problem with a filmmaker choosing to point their finger at a bad guy.

reply

Wow! I'm impressed by how well you seem to know the nature of my thought processes, e.g., my beliefs and my "logic", and how you seem to know what's best for me. Do you care to offer any more advice and criticisms for a stranger on the internet, or would you perhaps rather offer your own thoughts on this documentary?

reply

Wow! I'm impressed by how well you seem to know the nature of my thought processes...


I was responding to (and directly quoting) the very words you typed. Your opening line about an atrocity committed by the Indonesian government upon its people is:

The American political/war machine, although justifying mass murder through slick politicking and omnipresent mass media glorification, is just as guilty of such heinous acts


In practically every sentence you breathlessly lament the pointing of fingers and suggest that we should rather all engage in self-reflection and recognize our hypocrisy. You praise another film precisely because it doesn't point fingers at the perpetrators of specific war crimes.

In fact, in response to a movie--again--about an atrocity committed by the Indonesian government upon its people, where you claim not to want to ever implicate specific militaries, the only military you actually do point your finger at is America's.

No one had to read your mind, darling. Your bleeding heart is right there on your sleeve.

reply

Once again. . .

You've provided an incredible analysis of my rationale and interpretation of my posts, even providing some extraordinary advice about what I should do. Hats off to you, for criticizing a critique! Do you feel better now?

Moving on. . . Instead of providing anymore criticism of a stranger's criticisms on the internet [Speaking of which, do critics of movie critics ever get paid? Hmmm. . . I doubt it] ,would you care to contribute your thoughts pertaining to the documentary?

reply

No. Just as you used this public forum to critique just about everything but the movie (but especially the evil that is America), I used this public forum to critique you.

You sermonize about your political and social beliefs for the whole world to see and expect never to be challenged? That's not how it works.

reply

Otis, I completely agree with you.

And I think we can extend the atrocities showed in this film to all other political-oriented atrocities on the planet. By the way, didn't we see the part in which one of the killers talks about Guantanamo?

reply

Why do you keep bringing up Kubrick? Kubrick never accused the Europeans or U.S. of anything in his films, which seems to be what you're demanding of this film.

Who do you think helped the army and political Muslims to overthrow Sukarno, helping set the events in motion? But it would have been a mistake for the film to constantly point the finger at outsiders because though the Europeans and U.S. may have helped create a monster, the monster was the one who committed the crimes here.

reply

You mentioned that the Milgram Experiment and Stanford Prison Study each spawned fascinating documentaries. Which are those? I'm familiar with the experiments and find them fascinating, but don't know relevant documentaries. I'd love to check them out. Thanks.

reply

I think you missed the point of the movie. It wasn't that the movie tries to point fingers at Indonesia or try to emphasize what happened there over what Western governments do, it's rather an exploration of a particular war crime and its perpetrators, in order to understand the dynamics of political violence and the human condition in general, because what happened in Indonesia can be compared with many other war crimes in recent history. Notably, unlike in some other countries, the people who did these horrible things are still in power, with impunity, while the public knows all about it.
The movie does not single out Indonesia at all; if you remember one of the executioners actually talk about the War in Iraq, Guantanamo, Native American killings, and how no one has ever been prosecuted for these. "War crimes are written by winners," he said, and it is right. The movie is about the criminals themselves self-exploring their actions, realizing that they could have easily been the victims had the turn of events been different, the culture of impunity, and political violence. I'd say it hits the mark in more ways than one.

reply

You presume that I missed the point, when in fact I'm worried that so many others are going to miss it. I do appreciate your clarification on the movie's premise though; people will benefit from it. To say that it doesn't single out Indonesia at all is a blatant logical fallacy, however. The movie, on its immediate surface, is clearly about an Indonesian, mass-murdering tyrant. And that's what worries me.

reply

Definitely not good for tourism and encouraging more Australian kids to learn Indonesian lol.

reply

You presume that I missed the point, when in fact I'm worried that so many others are going to miss it.


Know what? Maybe you should stop worrying about the inability of others to understand movies as well as you do and start working on your superiority complex because from where I stand, you sound like a condescending jackass.

reply

Maybe you're a hypocrite and a murderer. I'm not. Speak for yourself.

reply

[deleted]

Are you trying to say that the U.S. is hypocritical because they have done horrific things to groups of people (most notable the American Indians?) I think it would be a little hypocritical if it was the United States that made the movie, but it wasn't. It was Josh Oppenheimer and he is very consistent in his pacifistic liberalism, so you can't call him a hypocrite.

My take on the movie is markedly different than most peoples. It would say it was a textbook execution (pun not intended) of Machiavellian principles. He wrote the bible on what a government should do when there is an attempted take over and the Indonesian government followed it to a T with amazing results...they very quickly stamped out the opposition and have held absolute power for the past 45 years. Say what you will about their methods, but they got amazing results. Machiavelli says in that instance, the government should, for a brief period of time, be so violent and so ruthless, they instill terror in anyone that was thinking of taking up arms against them. Think of it this way, if you slap a guy, he will hit you back. If you take a bat and beat him to within an inch of his life, he will be terrified of you and will probably run the other way if he ever comes across you again.

I think there is a lesson in here for the Syrian and Egyptian governments. They are both dealing with violent challenges to their authority. Instead of the current Western approach of placation and conciliation, they should take a page from Machiavelli and be ruthless and excessively violent until the opposition is broken. Worked for the Iranian government a couple of years ago, and of course it worked for the Indonesian government in 1965.



“There are no ordinary moments. There is always something going on.” – Peaceful Warrior

reply

[deleted]

Yeah, you're right; I think you may have missed my point. Here, I'll try to help out. No, I am not saying "the U.S. is hypocritical". Although, I can understand how you might perceive that my posts allude to such a fantastic notion. Nor am I saying that the director is hypocritical. Although, he has done a rather bang-up job at singling out and making a mockery out of one example that 99% of us didn't know about in the first place. As a matter of fact, I'm concerned that rather than seeing a little self in this experiment, audiences of this film could very easily interpret or construe it as a targeted evaluation of one mass-murdering tyrant from a distant (physically and culturally) country. I've used the United States military and political institutions as examples because they make such good examples; the majority of audience members who see this will be from the U.S or Europe. Pointing fingers at someone else doesn't always do the trick, Joshua Oppenheimer. My point is to encourage others to be honest with themselves instead of pointing fingers when extraordinary behavior is acted out by someone else. Yes, I'm calling upon the hypocrites. But, to say I'm calling upon one specific group or one specific person is a little impetuous. Don't ya think?

Yep, violence works sometimes. I can't argue that. Machiavelli or no Machiavelli, nature has always been and will always be extremely violent. But it's also extremely graceful.

reply

Why does everyone in this thread keep saying "THEY"?
Sometimes falling back on "US"
When they SHOULD be saying
ME
MYSELF
I
You are implicating yerselves here, unless you think you are above everyone else.

I saw the film as an exploration of the human psyche, not pointing fingers at all.
The ones pointing fingers are those writing in this thread (like I just did).

An observation - at least to me it was obvious that the director/producer offered the players some potentially cathartic moments.

reply

We've allowed our country to turn into a p o s. No country is more evil then the good old Christian, USA! And we have our own Gestapo...our CIA.

reply

@CPTMorgansbeard


Easy to say that it worked for those countries, when it sure as hell didn't work out for the victims of their purges. Really easy to say that unless you experienced it yourself, or know someone ho did. You need to check out a documentary called NEW YEAR'S BABY, which is the story of a Cambodian family that managed to escape from the tortures and the purges of the Pol Pot regime--ask them how well it worked out for them, hich it sure as hell didn't. The reality is, stomping out your opposition isn't the only damn way to handle a war.

Basically you sound like some pro-war nut who thinks that the end justifies the means, no matter what. Our government going around the world and stomping out any perceived threat to our financial interests in other countries is why those same countries (and many others) to this day hate the U.S. Not because they're supposedly jealous of our freedom, it's because we're always been interfering in THEIR business, without ever giving a damn about how we're screwing their countries up. Basically you're saying it's okay to be a damn dictator no matter what--that's a pretty *beep* up attitude to have, and that why Syria and Egypt have the problems they have--because they're restricting people's freedoms, and as long as that happens, you're always going to have unrest and protests against it.

reply

[deleted]

This isn't an American production though. Apart from American Joshua Oppenheimer who is one of the directors (Signe Byrge Sørensen, the other director, is Danish), the rest of the production crew is Danish or Norwegian.

reply

People tend to look at any piece of art and develop their own interpretation, then 1) generalize it, 2) assume their subjective experience is the objective truth. This is no different with film. I am a Kubrick fan, but I've encountered people who have watched his films and not seen them as 'mirrors', but simply as a satire on that specific group and time (and this is excluding his laughable war-themed opera prima, "Fear and Desire"). They've also called them "cold" and "lacking human connection", despite my eyebrow-raising.

Reading from comments and critics' reviews, it seems that most people take Oppenheimer's film to be a reflection. It definitely targets the Indonesian government and the 'free men', but goes further than that. As shocking as they reenactments are (and the ensuing meditation of reality vs film they provoke), what shocks audiences the most is the carefree, every day, "normal" behavior of the stars. They go from charismatic movie star wannabes, to complacent cogs in a corrupt system, to evil mass murderers, to tortured souls.

This going-further is likely what is catapulting this documentary to awards and recognition, in contrast to, say "Blackfish", which successfully raises an issue, points a finger, and then spectacularly fails at all opportunities for insight into the minds and motivations of those who collaborated in the process they now denounce, and any reflection on their part.

And the US is not left off the hook. "The Act of Killing" starts by explaining that the violence was sponsored by 'Western nations' (hint, hint). One of the killers goes into a rant about George W. Bush, Geneva, and war crimes not being applied to the winners. Landmark US movie stars and films are cited as inspiration for killing methods. English words are used throughout torture descriptions. US brands are frequently in the background. The rich victors get to wander with their families in that basic USA institution: the shopping mall.

So... those who do not take a 'look in the mirror' perspective from "The Act of Killing" I'd wager are likely the same people who did not see themselves in Kubrick films.

reply

Very well put, @demented_peruvian.

reply

Exactly

reply

[deleted]