115 mins.
Documentary, History, Foreign
July 19, 2013

Not Rated

The only problem with “The Act of Killing” is that it’s too long and repetitive (an unfortunate thing because the subject matter and some of the scenes are fascinating). Otherwise, it shows how far humans will go as long as they have the support of their government and culture. Many may watch this film and think only about how terrible these acts were. But how many will think about their own culture? How many will ponder how they’ve turned a blind eye to or even condoned the actions of their country’s military and government?

The premise of this documentary is that the filmmakers have convinced Indonesian “gangsters” to reenact their murders of and acts of exploitation against the ethnic Chinese in their country. They believe that their film (this is not the same as this documentary, which I don’t think they knew much about during filming) will be shown and embraced worldwide.

In 1965, after a failed coup, the government hired “gangsters” to exterminate Indonesian Chinese people as a way to eradicate any traces of Communism in the country (the Indonesian killings from 1965 to 1966). With the help of reporters in the country, they questioned, convicted, and killed over 1 million Chinese in Indonesia. The word for gangster in Indonesian comes from the English phrase, “free men.” This is a point that the “gangsters” emphasize repeatedly. They model themselves after characters in American gangster films; they say all of this freely and with pride. Most of them, along with many Indonesian laypeople, even find their actual murders and the reenactments of those murders humorous. Well, at least, they seem to; you can’t always tell whether someone truly applauds these acts or is just pretending to do so: As proof of the danger that could result from any disapproval of these acts, many of this film’s Indonesian film crew are listed as “Anonymous.” These “gangsters” have been revered by their fellow countrymen ever since. One of them even mentions that he was never punished or treated badly for his actions, so he has no guilt.

So they decide to create a movie that will highlight their reenactments. This movie also contains strange (within a Western context) musical and dance numbers. One of the main “gangsters” featured in this film, Herman Coto, inexplicably (unless I missed something) dresses as a woman in these numbers while he ogles the female dancers surrounding him. Again, strange.

The focus of the documentary, however, is on Anwar Congo. Anwar is revered as a founding father of a right-wing paramilitary organization (Pemuda Pancasila) in Indonesia. Unlike his fellow “gangsters,” Anwar feels intense regret. The very best sequence of this documentary is at the very end, when Anwar’s guilt overcomes him. He goes back to one of the places where he killed many people and begins to dry-heave repetitively. Unfortunately, the film took too long to get to that moment, If the filmmakers had edited earlier parts of the film a little more, then that scene would have been even more powerful. After shooting the reenactments, Anwar believes that he knows exactly how his victims felt decades ago. Joshua Oppenheimer, the director of this film, wisely responds that he can’t know that because he was simply in a reenactment. But Anwar insists that he can; I almost believed him. At least, I believe that he believes that.

Anwar is the exception in this film, though. That’s why he was a wise subject for these filmmakers to choose as their focus. He, as one of the most revered men of them all, provides an important counterpoint to the surrounding levity and puffed-up chests. The other “gangsters” cite all sorts of reasons to excuse their behavior. They speak of guilt and sin, but constantly conclude that they were doing what was needed to be done and that they would do it again. After certain reenactments, they even apologize for the ferocity of their acting, yet paradoxically claim (again, with pride) that it could be worse. They boldly state that the children of those who were killed have never retaliated because they would exterminate them, as well. Anwar never does that (he mostly listens silently with slight nods of his head to others when they say that – a seeming reluctant acceptance of the truth). Others even give him advice on how to overcome (i.e. ignore) his guilt. He says that he’s haunted by the ghosts of those he murdered; there’s a scene in their film that depicts this.

While I doubt that “The Act of Killing” will haunt me, I’m sure that it will stick with me as an example of what we, as humans, are capable of. I won’t make the mistake of judging these men; they were doing what they were told to do, and they were compensated (via the collection of bribes for the most part) and celebrated for doing so. That’s more than enough for them to ignore the feeling that they did terrible things. And they aren’t the only ones who have ever done that. The question is (and this was addressed by one of the “gangsters” in the film): What is the definition of war, military, sin, celebrity, and duty? The answer depends on whom you ask.

Verdict: Good

About: (Source: theactofkilling)

In the 1960’s Anwar Congo was a leader in Indonesia’s pro-regime paramilitary the Pancasila Youth who, along with his band of dedicated followers, was amongst those who participated in the murder and torture more than a million alleged Communists, ethnic Chinese and intellectuals. Proud of their deeds and completely unpunished, Anwar and his pals are delighted when the film’s director ask them to re-enact these murders for their documentary – in any genre they desire. Initially Anwar and his friends enthusiastically take up the challenge using hired actors, making elaborate sets and costumes and even using pyrotechnic, but eventually as the movie violence is played out and reconstructed, Anwar finally begins to feel unease and remorse.