Image from "The Act of Killing" taken during a private screening. Photo by:Yosef Djakababa
Why the documentary “The Act of Killing” or “Jagal” is equally impressive and
troubling
By Yosef Djakababa*
I
finally saw the documentary that created so much buzz in Indonesia after its
clip appeared on YouTube a
while ago, “The Act of killing” or “Jagal”
(Indonesian title) by Joshua Oppenheimer. The documentary focuses on the
perpetrators of the 1965-66 mass killings in Indonesia that took the lives of
hundreds of thousands alleged Communists. This violent episode is part of
a chain of events leading directly to a major political and social
transformation in mid 1960’s. This series of events is popularly known as “Peristiwa’65” or “the 1965 event.”
The roots of the problem are deep and
complex. Since early 1960s, the rivalry between PKI (Partai Komunis Indonesia – Indonesian
Communist Party), the Army, and President Sukarno intensified. The situation
worsened as the interests of the Cold War and Sukarno’s “Konfrontasi” campaign against the new
State of Malaysia increased the already heated political atmosphere, and thus
complicated Indonesia’s domestic politics. The situation culminated on October
1, 1965 when an allegedly left-leaning military group who called themselves the
30th September Movement (G30S) launched an operation to abduct several top brass
Army officers from their respective homes. G30S took the generals to a
place called Lubang Buaya in
East Jakarta, where they killed them, dumped and left their bodies in an old
well.
The Army blamed the PKI as the mastermind
behind the killing of the Army Generals. As an act of retaliation, General
Soeharto led the mass purging that made Indonesia a success in the Cold War’s
anti-Communist campaign. The immediate outcome of this incident was the arrest
and killings of hundreds of thousands if not millions of PKI members and its
alleged sympathizers. Emerging as an important figure during this period,
Soeharto eventually became Indonesia’s second President, replacing the ailing
Sukarno and he will remain in power for more than thirty years. During his regime
– known as the New Order, Soeharto consistently maintained his anti-Communist
outlook and systematically suppressed any left leaning groups in Indonesia.
The New Order – sponsored history of 1965
highlights the heroism of the falling Generals and demonized the PKI and its
followers. The mass killings and illegal incarceration are absent in the
school curriculum and public discourse. For decades, Indonesian public is
reluctant to talk about this dark period. The survivors of the 65-66 tragedies
however, continue to suffer from the violent repercussions and discrimination,
especially throughout the New Order period. Thousands, if not millions of
Indonesians are still suffering from what happened during those years and still
struggling to recover from their troubling past.
Unlike other movies with 1965-66 themes,
the documentary “The Act of Killing” bravely deals with the perpetrators. In my
knowledge, “The Act of Killing” is the first documentary that highlights the
point of view of those who actually did the killings and thus revealing their
deep roles in the purging campaign. Joshua Oppenheimer, the director of the
film, masterfully uses an innovative method to bring out this difficult and
sensitive topic. By giving the space for the perpetrators to portray and
reflect upon their experiences through re-enactment and movie making,
Oppenheimer follows the perpetrators’ recollection, fantasy and ideas. The
result is an image of ironic, absurd, sometimes comical, but also grotesque
portrayals of men who proudly boast their ghastly roles in the 1965-1966 mass
violence. Oppenheimer has succeeded in getting not only the point of view of
the perpetrators, but also managed to take it into a different level when these
perpetrators who are mostly preman
or thugs, agree to re-enact and collaborate with him in what they thought to be
a production of a feature film.
A spectator of the “The Act of Killing”
might be wondering on how ethical is the method of the movie making. In several
interviews, Oppenheimer denies any allegations that accuse him for manipulating
the actors. He argues that these men actively participate not only in
choreographing the film, but also in selecting costumes and themes, writing the
scripts, and the filming such as selecting the camera angle. Furthermore,
Oppenheimer claims that all actors have signed a release form, written in
Indonesian language, that grants him, the filmmaker, unprecedented permission
to use any footage. Just for my own curiosity, I was wondering whether the
actors knew that the filmmaker had a plan to release behind the scenes
fragments as a full documentary on its own rather than the feature film that
they were producing. In any case, it would be interesting to see the final
version of “Arsan dan Aminah”
(the actual feature film project made by the perpetrators.)
The “Act of Killing” successfully
highlights multifaceted personalities of the perpetrators as they are not only
pictured as cold blooded, brutal, inhuman murderer, but also a loving father
and a fun person to hang out and have drink with. Looking from this
perspective, these perpetrators behave not too far different from the so called
“normal” people.
I appreciate Oppenheimer’s groundbreaking
approach in filming a sensitive and controversial topic. However, I am utterly
disappointed with the lack of historical context in this documentary. The
complicity of the period in which the mass killings took place is radically (if
not pathetically) reduced into a few lines shown in the very beginning of the
film. Plenty of evidences have shown how the events in the “1965 Indonesia” are
very complex in nature. For example, the victims and survivors are not all the
members of the Communist party or its affiliates, many of them are Sukarno
loyalist and strong followers of the state ideology Pancasila.
Another misleading point of the
documentary is the portrayal of Pancasila
through the Pemuda Pancasila,
a militant group consisting of radical youths and thugs. This focus could send
a deceptive message that Pancasila
is simply a “bad ideology” that blinds people. While this argument might be
true for some, many others would think otherwise. I think the problem lies on
the interpretation and implementation. All ideologies are subject to radical
interpretation that perhaps leads to suppression and violence, but reducing Pancasila into merely a group of thugs
would dangerously simplify not only the ideology itself but also the whole
historical context of the atrocities in 1965-66.
With the lack of historical context,
juxtaposing the act of killings, the perpetrators, and Pancasila suggests a simple opposition
of evil versus good. Oppenheimer is exactly doing what Soeharto's New Order
regime has done, but this time it is the other way around. The New Order’s
infamous film “Pemberontakan G.30.S/PKI”
(some called it “Pengkhianatan
G30S/PKI”) simplifies the narrative by depicting the evil
Communists performs torture and acts of killings in their effort to get rid of Pancasila. What Oppenheimer does in
“The Act of Killing” is the same simplification with the reverse protagonist
and antagonists. He depicts the State sponsored perpetrators as the loyal Pancasila supporters who are eagerly
wanting to get rid of the Communists. Highlighting this group as the
representative of Pancasila ideology
is just simply misleading. In my opinion, Pemuda
Pancasila CANNOT be seen to be the only representative of Pancasila ideology nor their actions as
the typical mindset of Pancasila
followers. It is just the same by suggesting FPI (Front Pembela Islam) as the representative of Indonesian
Islam, which they are NOT! This fact troubles me the most about the movie.
I understand that it is impossible to
tell a complete story of “1965 event” in a documentary and I do not expect “The
Act of Killing” to reconstruct the “1965 event” narrative. But I think it is
still critical to establish at least a proper context to explain why the
perpetrators; Anwar Congo and his friends, did what they did. In the
private screening that I attended, most people were disturbed by this movie.
Many were also at lost and raised the following intriguing questions; Why can
Anwar and his friends be so brutal but yet seems cool and happy in
telling/reenacting their experience? What triggered them at that time to easily
kill people, certainly not only because of the declining income from the cinema
where they worked as told by one of the perpetrators? Why they suddenly
becoming sadistic and so proud of what they did? Why they were hailed as
heroes in a TV show depicted in the movie? The documentary barely touches these
questions, let alone provide hint to answer them. Interestingly, most of the
audience also wanted to know what is the motivation of the filmmaker in making
“The act of killing.”
Whatever the motivation could be, this
documentary contributes to the debates around the “1965 event.” Better
understanding of the historical context is a must to grasp the violence in
1965-66. One former political prisoner, who endured New Order incarceration in
Buru Island, confided to me in an interview. He wanted to know and understand
the whole reason why the government put someone like him (who were not a member
of PKI) into a remote prison camp without any trial, and why he had to endured
years of physical and mental suffering along with discrimination after being
released. That being said; even someone who experienced first hand the
turbulent period of 1965-1966 still has many questions about the nature of the
conflict let alone those who did not live through that period.
I want to be clear that I am not
condoning nor sympathizing with Anwar Congo or other perpetrators of the mass
killings. I also do not support any repressive and violent acts even if a
religion, state or a person sponsors and “legitimizes” it. I only wish to
see the multifaceted aspects of the “1965 event” not only being shown as a
simplified black and white, good versus evil campaign, as the Soeharto’s New
Order regime has done for years. Since the fall of Soeharto in 1998, scholars,
activists and a number of human rights groups have worked so hard to debunk a
simplified New Order version of “1965 event.” Unfortunately, “The Act of
Killing” has the potential to repeat the mistake that the New Order regime has
done by showing certain aspects of the “1965 event” (the perpetrators point of
view) in a merely simplified black and white, good versus evil manner.
Could a national reconciliation emerge
from “The Act of Killing”? It is hard to tell. I think the otherwise would
likely to happen; reconciliation will be even more difficult to attain.
The movie not only sends a message and portrays how brutal and violent
the Indonesian people could be, but it also tells the supporters of PKI,
victims and survivor of 1965-1966 tragedies that they should not dig into the
past or otherwise they will be dealing with another potential violent
repercussions; a fact that is suggested in some parts of the movie. Indonesians
need to find peaceful ways in dealing with the troubled past by critically
re-learning its history. Without knowledge and good will, history tends to
repeat itself.
Nonetheless, I still recommend people to
go and see, “The Act of Killing” aka “Jagal”,
but one must observe it very cautiously and critically. Furthermore, I would
strongly urge those who will or have already watched this film to seek as much
as possible additional information about “the 1965 event” from many different
perspectives: both from the “winners” and from the “losers.” Finding additional
information is crucial in order to learn and have broader knowledge about how
difficult and complex the situation when the mass killings took place. And
hopefully we can all work together and find peaceful means in dealing with our
nation’s troubled past so that we can move on and not to repeat the same
mistakes.
*The
writer is a historian and Director of Center for Southeast Asian
Studies-Indonesia. He has conducted a long and extensive research about the
construction of the 1965 New Order official narrative for his Ph.D dissertation
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison U.S.A.
More info about the film: www.jagalfilm.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQhIRBxbchU
""