In the coming week, we will begin explore what are possibly the two most important concepts related to documentary making: Ethics and Responsibility.
This week in class we watched the visceral, shocking, and - at least for me - truly unforgettable The Act of Killing. And in the coming days, please watch the director Joshua Oppenheimer's follow-up The Look of Silence. It's on Netflix and, along with Winter on Fire, it received an Academy Award nomination last year for Best Documentary.
I really look forward to knowing your opinion of both films - and trust me: you will have an opinion - especially in terms of ethics, as well as in terms of how the two documentaries compare and contrast thematically, aesthetically, and narratively. Which one did you like more? Why?
In writing about The Act of Killing - which he refers to as a "documentary of the imagination" here - Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges calls the film "an important exploration of the complex psychology of mass murderers," saying "it is not the demonized, easily digestible caricature of a mass murderer that most disturbs us. It is the human being."
But there are others who were outraged and disgusted and called The Act of Killing "repellant," like the Christian Science Monitor's Peter Rainer, who wrote in his review, "Oppenheimer allows murderous thugs free reign to preen their atrocities and then fobs it all off as some kind of exalted art thing. This is more than an aesthetic crime; it's a moral crime."
For this week's post, please tell me as specifically as possible what you think the director Joshua Oppenheimer's approach to both films are. Is he being Responsible and Ethical in his portrayal of the atrocities committed in Indonesia? If so, how? If not, how not? And how does Oppenheimer show Authority in The Act of Killing and The Look of Silence - or does he? Please answer these questions as they apply to each film, and please remember to provide at least an example or two from both to support your claims.
Additionally, I'd like to know what (or whose) interest you think these films serve. What impact might they have on those watching (like you)? Do both films take into account the welfare of the people represented? If so, how?
Finally, and just in case you'd like more information about The Act of Killing and The Look of Silence before we meet, here are some additional links:
- Joshua Oppenheimer's Documentary Manifesto (here)
- An interview that provides some context, background and aesthetic insight about The Act of Killing from Joshua Oppenheimer (here)
- An excerpt from a feisty and condemning piece about The Act of Killing written by BBC producer and doc expert Nick Frasier titled "We Love Impunity" (here)
- A report showing the incredible impact that The Act of Killing has had on Indonesia, where it triggered the first public debate of its kind around the country's past and inspired the Human Rights Commission of Indonesia to call the film "essential viewing for us all." (here)
- A VICE interview with Joshua Oppenheimer about The Look of Silence (here)
- A short Deadline interview with Joshua Oppenheimer addressing the complications of making The Look of Silence and why he made two documentaries about the subject instead of one (here)
- An interview in the New York Times from this past Friday, February 12, with the main subject of The Look of Silence, Adi Rukun (here)
- "Daring to Disturb the Sound of Silence: Oppenheimer Returns to Indonesia" - an interview by the International Documentary Association posted on February 2 (here)
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteI feel as if I need to get out my opinion and thoughts on the doc we watched today before I delve into the next one. Once I watch the next doc (which I will do my best to be more analytical of and attempt to watch twice, schedule depending), I will add to my post by commenting on this first response.
First, I’d like to say I was proud of myself for getting though a subtitled film, though this film wasn’t that difficult. I don’t know if it is because I read fast, or they speak slower, or the translations weren’t completely accurate, but I was able to pay attention to both the people on the screen as well as read what was being said.
Back to the doc itself--I was thoroughly confused by the film. I felt it was almost more of a “making of” than a documentary. The whole time I kept wondering why we were watching a group of self-proclaimed gangsters talk about how they wanted the film they make to be as authentic as possible. It was disturbing (which I believe to be part of the director’s vision) to include the grandson watching his grandfather explain how he murdered people, and then at the end watch his grandpa “die”. It was surreal to think they (the kids) are that unfazed by it all. But at the same time, I have to imagine that is how all kids of war are. That’s how I am—hurt that it takes killing others to get a point across, yet a little unfazed by all the death that has occurred in my lifetime. I hate the fact that I can even think this last statement to be true. But in a way, that one little part of the film makes me consider my own life and how I view the world. So, in a way, the documentary has already done its job of making me think about this topic.
I will say there were some very interesting choices in cuts at the beginning of the doc. The way they chose to go from a description with a recreation of the killings, to gatherings of troops at what seems like a possible political type rally, to the “gangsters” doing everyday (or at least what I would consider every day to be as an American) things such as golfing and bowling. The cut before the golf (if I remember correctly) was the youth army all in orange, then to blue skies and green grass. It was a great juxtaposition of colors, as well as seriousness versus the calm.
On a slight tangent…I’m aware of the cultural differences, but I found it telling of the government/army that those in the forces weren’t standing at complete attention and were all very ADD. The troops seemed to be rocking back and forth, looking around, and other things. I’m used to seeing troops standing still and staring forward as someone of great importance speaks to the masses. Also, it was distracting and confusing to me during those large gatherings because it was a little difficult to tell who was army and who was just a supporter since they all had on the orange camo. It was said some time towards the end that people are usually paid to be at political gatherings, so thinking back on those images, I’m left to wonder if those people were paid to be there and given those orange camo shirts to stand and imply unity.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteBack on track—I think the director’s intent may have been to show the audience that people in power do not always walk away unscathed. Anwar Congo can be seen as having a bit of a story arc throughout the doc. Seeing as the premise of the doc explores the making of a movie, it’s hard to tell what’s real and what is acting. It seems as if Anwar genuinely feels remorse for what he has done. He says he has nightmares, while the others claim to never have given the killings any afterthought. There are some weird shots included in the film of Anwar in bed, and in one you can see he is not asleep. I don’t think those blips were necessary, but I feel as though they were meant to show us he is dealing with sleepless nights because he is up thinking of his past sins.
–Tangent – there was one other blip that I felt was very unnecessary and I’m not sure what point in the doc it had at all. It was somewhere in the middle and it was a shot at night of a man walking in the street off camera and a child is still in the frame of view. I can’t recall exactly what the child was doing, but I remember thinking “what the fuck does this have to do with anything?”
We see him appear to break when they are filming his “death scene” and I had thought he was finally coming to terms with what he had done. Then he contradicts what I believe most audiences thought by calling his grandsons in to watch his “amazing acting skills”. Yet once more, he contradicts himself by breaking down and explaining to the director that he now feels what his victims felt. He even revisits a site where he killed many and dry heaves. I couldn’t watch at that point because I was trying not to do the same. And also, was so distracted by the fact that his dry heaves sounded like he was shitting his pants. I’m sure that sounds…I’m not sure how that sounds to people who read this, but that’s what I was reminded of. It almost sounded edited to be honest, and it was slightly distracting.
Anwar is the only “character” (and I put that word in quotes because most of this doc feels like it’s just all storytelling) I felt relatable to in any way, shape, or form. I haven’t killed people (only in my dreams, and only because they do terrible things, but that’s a whole other story/post), but I’ve made mistakes that I often think about the ramifications of. It’s the idea of coming to terms with the past that was invoked by watching this. I guess that is one of the films intentions, or at least it should be if it wasn’t. People just do what they think is right at the time, and often don’t think about the ramifications for the future. But I think in today’s society/world, that’s exactly what we should be doing.
I feel as though I’ve rambled on enough for now, and I feel as though I’m improving on being more analytical of the film itself and what its intentions are as opposed to simply stating if I like it or don’t. More to come!
I really struggled to get through this film. I think ethically, this story was more suited than the other, but I understand for reasons of exploring both sides, but this one seemed slower. I think the point was for the story to move slower and the silences or cricket sounds were added for effect. Not just effect, but for moments of reflection so the audience can come to terms with what was said or had happened in the previous scene. For me, I struggled to get all the way to the end, and even thought of giving up at points. I'm glad I didn't since the ending was more than I expected.
DeleteOne thing that bothered me most, and I'm not sure if it was intentional, was how difficult it was to read the subtitles for a lot of the mob/military/killers because their patterned shirts distracted from and/or blended with the white letters of the text.
Joshua used both films to show opposite ends of the spectrum of the same story. It was interesting in the sense that both sides of stories need to be told. But ethically, it was a challenge. He seemed to let the killers in the first dictate the film and he just edited it all together to show what he felt was their true nature. In the Look of Silence, he let the emotions dictate the pace of the film. To me, he missed his mark since I felt the pace to be a little slower than I could stand. Also, the way the story progressed, or neglected to progress made me lose interest pretty quickly. The ending brought me back a bit in the sense that she had no clue her brother had taken part in the killing of her son.
Strangely enough, the Act of Killing evoked more of an emotional response from me than the second film.
I felt that both films were very boring . I didn't like the long periods of silence and having to read from subtitles. What these men did were horrible, and having a documentary made about it the way it was made was very unethical indeed . these men didn't care that they killed people they thought they were doing the right thing . It seems to me like Joshuas approach in each film was to bring out the truth of what happened back in 1966. The first film was about the killers and the second film was about the victims. film was about the victims. It disturbed me how happy the killers were to reenact their killings and how much they didn't care . Joshua does not show authority because he is obviously not in control of any of his films, for example the killers made the movie not him and one of the victims lead the interviews not him , So it wasn't a very authentic at all now was it . I think this film serves as a way to let people know that this happened because I sure didn't and I wish I didn't because it's not my problem, it sucks that this happened to them but what are we gonna do about it stop it? What was Joshua trying to accomplish, other than the fact that his films were so boring. I almost fell asleep for the second film, so I guess you were right when you said it would be challenging, .because I found it challenging to stay awake. I really don't know what else to say about these films, I probably won't go as in-depth as Samantha did , like oh my gosh, that's literally too in-depth LOL, but anyways that's all I have to say about these films.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, Brandon! I think our discussion next week will be great, but unlike you, I don't think what Samantha did is literally too in-depth. I love what she did. It's passionate and she's really trying to figure out why she had such a visceral response to the work. I hope you at least read all of the articles I linked to in my blog post, as I believe it would further inform your not in-depth enough response. Thanks again!
DeleteMine was a little overboard. But I'm super new to watching docs and trying to analyze them. I was just typing as I thought to figure out my point. I definitely agree I said A TON, and probably went a little too long. And I definitely think the making of this film was unethical in a sense, but every story deserves to be told, it's just a matter of how it's told and who the audience is. It's a heartbreaking thing to have to meet with killers and have them be so joyful in their pursuit of reliving what they did, but one has to remember to stand back and be as objective as you can so the story gets told. I'm sure nobody wanted to make a movie or doc about Hitler, but it had to be done for history's sake.
DeleteHi All!
ReplyDeleteThere is a great program on the Sundance Channel, "Close Up With The Hollywood Reporter." This week's guests are the leading Doc filmmakers. They are talking about ethics and more. Check it out!
I found the approach to the two films different but the same. "The Act of Killing" was a more extreme take compared to "The Look of Silence". Joshua had pushed the people of "The Act of Killing" into the recreation of the events. I think you could argue his intentions were good. I believe that he wanted the people involved to get a better understanding of the way the events actually took place, but in order for some of them to ACTUALLY realize what they had done, Joshua had to push them, and we could see this finally with the man at the end. In "The Look of Silence" it seemed to me that Joshua took into account a lot of the criticisms and backlash that came with the first film, and took a different approach to try and reach some of the perpetrators of the original events. With events such as these killings, it could become difficult to portray the stories, and while these two films got their point across, there are definitely some blurred lines that may have been crossed. It seems like the interview style of LoS is more ambush oriented. Joshua and his subject are trying to catch out the people being interviewed to get them to admit to what they did, or at least feel bad about it. Ambushing these people in this style could be related to the tortures they committed, albeit less harmful and less extreme, but giving the reasoning that these are bad people and you can do this, makes you no better than them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI’ve see The Act of Killing at least 5 times. The Theatrical Cut twice this year during school and once when it was released while the Director’s Cut I’ve seen twice. This is my second time viewing The Look of Silence this year and seeing it this time and writing about it now, it is very difficult for me to draw boundaries between all these versions of the same events so for this essay I will compare the methods and ethics of The Act of Killing and The Look of Silence. First off, I claim that in order for documentary (and even cinema in general) to remain relevant and be a cause for the change we wish to see in the world, there must be a constant breaking of the ethical boundaries we as a society set for ourselves in terms of art. I’m not saying we should abandon all ethics that we have for how we make movies, but we must be constantly evolving, exploring which buttons are ok push to make a successful film and which ones will cause harm and make bad movies.
ReplyDeleteThe Act of Killing operates on a level beyond understanding to Western audiences. The opening scene is extremely shocking even though nothing important is really happening. We are aware of a genocide that took place years ago and we are introduced to the killers that the film will follow in their daily lives. They tell locals to act as victims and they do it surprisingly well. This is the surrealism of The Act of Killing. Nothing seems possible that we are seeing. Killers roaming free and as heroes on the streets, and even worse, free to re-enact their crimes without any qualms about people hearing because they are validated every single day of their lives. Joshua Oppenheimer says he had followed about 60-70 killers for the film but he decides to track Anwar Congo as his main character. This makes for an effective choice because we see (or perhaps it's an act) him feel immense guilt for his crimes against his countrymen. This guilt makes him more human and more prone for us to make an attempt to understand why a man will commit such evils.
The Look of Silence is said by Oppenheimer to be the film he had originally wanted to make. The film follows a traditional documentary format, but one can argue that the results are even more bone chilling. While The Act of Killing asks the killers to re-enact crimes for a Western audience, The Look of Silence asks the ultimate question almost everyone wants to know, “Why?” Oppenheimer places a victim next to a killer and probes him on how an individual can do the things we hear them describe in the film. When I watched this film the first time I was unable to understand how anybody who lived through this can approach their oppressor and remain frightfully calm the way the man does. He wants answers. He does not want violence and confrontation, he just wants a feasible reason for his brother's death, but at the same time, realizing he probably will not get one.
The last scene of The Act of Killing is one for considerable discussion. Is it an act and does it matter? Whether it is an act or not, an argument could be made for both sides, but I come to a more pessimistic resolution in that I do not believe it matters. We see Anwar deal with his conscious throughout the film and then he reverts back to a boasting killer. This is all the more sad if he is not acting and actually gagging at the thought of his crimes but if he is faking this for Joshua, then he is even more sinister than we may think. From film and literature, we have a plethora of characters who will feel bad for a wrong they did. Anwar surely knows this, and if he is smart enough to fake it for sympathy, then he is all the more and still a dangerous person.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThese films, The Look of Silence and The Act of Killing, were very hard to watch for very different reasons. The Act of Killing is completely astonishing and almost unbelievable. My first thought when watching The Act of Killing two years ago was that, this would be comparable to interviewing and creating a documentary about Nazi’s, it’s completely shocking and horrifying, and yet, I couldn’t look away. Anwar Congo certainly takes us on a journey throughout this whole film. I think Anwar is someone who is so messed up from the things that he has done, that no one would ever be able to completely capture him, his thought process or his past on camera, which is what makes him so interesting. He almost feels like two different men, one who wants to believe that what he did was right and the other who desperately wants redemption.
ReplyDeleteI think the director Joshua Oppenheimer’s approach to The Act of Killing was absurdity. While watching this I couldn’t help thinking how absurd it was, especially every time I saw Anwar and his group of comrades laughing while making a film about another man’s death. It was insane. The fact that these men, who are still in power, can be so casual about the deaths of so many is hard to believe. Anwar is just about the only one out of these men who seem to be even the least bit troubled by what he did. I think by making these men think that they are in control and that they are being celebrated, made this film really truthful. They don’t think that what they did was wrong and that is horrifying. I think that Oppenheimer’s is being one hundred percent responsible and ethical by displaying these men for what they truly are, cowards with wire and no remorse.
In my opinion, Oppenheimer’s approach to The Look of Silence, was to tell the truth. This film was hard to watch, in that, it was a film about all the people who were left behind. These types of documentaries are always the ones that get me because no one really tends to focus on the people who loose everything, only what they’ve lost and how. I think that Oppenheimer really found a winner in Adi Rukun, his face says so much without him having to say anything at all. I understood his confusion and his need to know why this happened, and that’s why I connected so much with him. Rukun is such a strong person and I was so impressed with him and how he was able to confront such weak people and demand answers, even though not many were given. I think that this film is authentic in the way that Oppenheimer is putting these criminals face to face with someone who suffered because of them. We get to see them cower in the face of Adi and that is truly satisfying and unsurprising.
The Look of Silence and The Act of Killing are two od the most powerful films I have ever watched. It makes me think beyond what I know and beyond what I see every day. I know that the world can be/is a shitty place, but with these films I feel like I almost, almost, get to experience it and that is the best way I can describe these films, an experience.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I liked The Look of Silence more because I felt like it was way more personal. Like yea, The Act of Killing for sure showed reenactments that I would have never imagined in a million years...But The Look of Silence just came at my soul dude. Honestly, he went from house to house talking about his brother’s death. I felt more of a connection with this movie because it zeroed in on a specific story...and the fact that he was so willing to forgive….that is just the purest of humanity shown in a film. Like you honestly cannot reenact that integrity to be the bigger person. I also prefer the way this film was filmed. I adored the time they spent of the sound, color, and a lot of the shots seemed so cinematic to me that I caught myself asking if I would consider this to be an actual documentary (obviously, it’s a yes, but still). It was very visually fascinating.
I feel like he was just thinking about how to show the viewer’s this mass murder without showing any photos or footage of the murder itself. Like I feel like he was not thinking about taking some psychos to go live out their glory days or whatever you want to call it.
I get that they were like totally stoked to show what happened, how it happened, and where it happened, but I don’t think the director was gung ho about trying to have them embrace those past incidents. For example, in The Act of Killing we see Anwar and Herman towards the end where Anwar becomes the victim. It’s the part where the place is the typical, blue, stygian office, and like Anwar couldn’t finish the choking reenactment because he broke down. Anyway, this part showed that he was feeling both remorse and self-pity, which made him seem both like a sadist and like overly human with this sense of wanting to feel humane. Honestly, I know they were acting throughout the entire film, but this is just something that I don’t think could be a reenactment. Like Anwar just felt that way and there is no other way to put it. I don’t think this was a part where he wanted to trophy around his killings...For me, it just showed that this dude is still human and we all know that his morals were wrong at the time of his killings, but II just can’t find myself seeing this film as some sort of documentary about winners showing off and prideful as much as Oppenheimer saying hey this shit happened, this is what they felt, and like yea it’s totally bogus, but it’s the truth, and I’m not going to sit here and sugar coat what these people did.
ReplyDeleteI just want everyone to know that I was not emotionally stable enough to watch this...also, I feel like Oppenheimer just made this film for everyone to see the social injustices there are in the world. I wouldn’t show my three year old neighbor this, but at the same time, there are kids in these films that understand concepts like communism at such a young age that it makes me wonder wtf are we doing with our kids in our own country. Like should they know more about war and the shit that we are fighting for, or should we just let it roll over until they hit the age of stable opinions? Like in The Look of Silence, those kids were literally learning about communism and like getting stabbed in the throat like wtf….idk. These films made me think and now I have to go reevaluate my life decisions lol...but like for real….
Also, I feel like I keep ranting about the kids, but I think both films were just so fascinating in the sense that each story was just so personal. I am just so obsessed with how each person thought their own perspective was right. For example, in The Look of Silence, I felt so torn between this feeling of forgiveness and almost absolute hatred. My opinion on killing is that it’s just wrong (and I am assuming that a lot of people will agree with me), but the fact that so many people saw it as the solution at the time was just like the most wtf thought for me. It’s just like their opinion man. That’s what I thought throughout the film. It’s like when I say, “I think everyone should be a vegetarian.” That is honestly just my opinion, but obviously other people will beg to differ. For me, it was just so weird to actually see people (outside of courtrooms or jails) to just be like yea dude I just killed this dude right here and it was gnarly and rad af. I feel like I’m really obsessed with every individual’s perspective in these films...I actually might have to put myself through another break down and watch them again just so I can engage with these real life stories bro….
OH MY GOD. Let me first begin by saying that these are the two most boringness films I have ever sat through. I know it's probably going to be an unpopular opinion, but I did not like either of theses films. No, it went that they made me angry, or disturbed me, or struck a nerve with me. I genuinely do not like the films, and I was so bored during the class screening I almost got up and left. I do not understand why people stroke the filmmakers ego for a basic, and boring film. Let me first begin with The Look of Silence, even though a lot of these points are also true about Act of Killing. Out of the two films, this was the one I felt more of a story in. The main subject of the film is easier to relate to, not because he's a victim, but because he is portrayed more realistically. We see the interactions with his mother and father and we're told their stories. It seems that the film maker cares more about them than he cared about the subjects in The Act of Killing. Along the same line, I believe that The Look of Silence has better camera work and better interviews. However. I believe that this film, while better of the two, was still riding along the basics of doc film making. Wide shot, interview shot, close up of the face. It's all very basic. Just because you found people with a compelling history doesn't mean that you can just ignore creative film work and let talking head after talking head after talking head carry your film. It does not work. I understand the underlying meaning of the film, that he silence and quiet moments speak for those who are dead or do not have a voice, and that through the silence you're supposed to think about the killings and shit. THATS BEEN DONE ITS NOTHING NEW AND ITS BORING.
ReplyDeleteNext, let's talk about The Act of Killing. Where do I even begin with this film. We get it. These old sexist guys killed a bunch of people in sadistic ways and they joke around about it and have a lot of money. It got old after the first 10 minutes. Mass murder and gang activity happens all over the world everyday. I get that we are supposed to be disturbed or appalled by their jokes or about how they see nothing wrong with it, but that's nothing new in the world. It's very possible that it would just be me, I'm very desensitized to things of that nature, I watch docs and tv shows about serial killers, and I'm writing a research paper about them for another class. They are nothing new, and there are millions of people like them around the world. They want to make a movie about their white killings, cool man. We don't get to see any of the film, or even get told the title. We just see back a stage things that are boring. Anything thing about this film is the lack of creative cinematography. It was a hand held follow me around cam for the majority of the film. That gets old within 5 minutes. Then again we have the basics, wide shot, interview shot and close ups. BASIC FILM 101. It was just talking head after talking dad after another and we don't even get to know any of them but one and maybe another. The film itself didn't have a sense of time, I had no idea how long he was there filming, or how long this movie was taking to create. I have no idea why this film has received such high praise when it showed us nothing new about the world. Now there is of course the question of ethics. Is it okay to show people who enjoyed killing? Is it okay to joke about the dead? Is it okay to reenact tragedy? That's all up to a persons personal beliefs. People are people and if that is who they are then show them how they are, the dead are dead and a joke won't hurt anyone, and tragedy is bound to be reenacted. Let's talk about the final scene in Act of Killing. Why is someone realizing that what they did is bad some sort of reason for interest and praise? We all knew all along that what they did is bad, and why is him finally realizing it so special? That's how people are, they live in ignorance until they experience it themselves. It's nothing new. Overall these films are blown way out of proportion. However this is all my own opinion and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteWOW. “The Look of Silence” was a long and arduous ride that got right down to the honest truth of the mass murdering in Indonesia. Compared to “The Act of Killing”, “The Look of Silence” was a lot less action and recreation driven and more spaced out. Oppenheimer’s approach to both films was definitely to dig deeper than the mass murdering and focus on how the killers are coping and dealing with what they have done and whether or not they feel remorse. Because the killers are still in power and dangerous, I believe Oppenheimer did a fantastic job of remaining neutral in the documentary and simply allowing the killers to recreate what happened on their own. In “The Look of Silence”, I definitely feel a shift in motivation on Oppenheimer’s part. He follows Adi throughout the village with the purpose of confronting each killer and revealing that their orders had been a lie and that the communists were just normal people. Because it’s such a sensitive and serious topic, the filming had to be handled with care, which I believe Oppenheimer did. I also think he achieved his goal of the film which was to reveal the authentic truth to the killers and the audience and receive mixed reactions from each killer to further study how they dealt with killing so many people.
ReplyDeleteOppenheimer is ethical and responsible in his shooting because most of the footage was set up very observational and he allowed for both the killers and Adi to do what they felt would be most comfortable in telling their stories. In my opinion, he had the most authority in the film because he could choose what he wanted to show, but at the same time, the story itself took control over him as new details kept being discovered like how Adi’s uncle turned out to be a guard who watched the “communists”. Overall, I really enjoyed the film because killing people is such an atrocity and is difficult to comprehend, yet we see these killers laughing at the memories, taking photos at the sites of killings, and explaining the phenomenon of drinking human blood to stay sane. I think one of my favorite lines in this documentary is when one of the killers at Snake River says, “That’s how it is, life on Earth”, and I just thought, “WOW. Life on Earth for these killers is to deal with the atrocities that they’ve committed because it will never go away” and I believe that’s exactly what Oppenheimer was trying to show
These films should be directed towards a mature audience. The subject matter is extremely heavy and successfully brings awareness to a problem not even talked about in its own country of origin, whether it was done ethically or not.
ReplyDeleteThe approach to The Look of Silence creates a connection between the family of Adi and the audience. By showing the vulnerability of the father, and the emotional weight carried by the family, it allows the audience to feel compassion towards the characters. It was clearly a more intimate approach to the issue. As opposed to The Act of Killing, the audience despises Anwar and the other death squad leaders. The film is very loud and dramatic.
I think that Oppenheimer gives up his authority. I feel that both Anwar and Adi shaped the films because they both were given the power to accomplish what they wanted to achieve. For Anwar, it was recreating the mass killings he conducted in the past and for Adi, it was finding out more information about his murdered brother.
I liked the technique the director used with the opening scene because it gives the viewer a glance of what footage looks like before it is manipulated (even though the audience is not aware of what is happening in this scene until later on in the film).
I do not think Oppenheimer went about these films in an ethical manner. In the project “Documentary Ethics” it talks about certain concepts that directors should be aware about. One in particular was not causing harm to the “vulnerable”. There are many scenes in The Act of Killing where the vulnerable are not protected. Specifically when Anwar is shooting scenes for his film. He has adults and children act as if they are begging for their lives. It was clear that people participating/acting in Anwar’s film were extremely traumatized when a “scene” would be over. I think in this case the director did not protect the weak.
Yes, a professional obligation to make the film is present, but the director crossed an ethical line by supporting this because emotional harm was inflicted upon the powerless.
The project also touches on when the the director holds more power in the relationship than the subject does. It states that because of this difference in power, the director should not harm or leave a subject worse off. In The Look of Silence, I felt at times that some subjects, particularly the families interviewed by Adi, were left worse off. I did find it strange how immediate family members claimed to have no idea what their spouses or relatives were participating in, but it still irked me to see emotional harm come to them.
I feel weird saying that I enjoyed these films but I liked how they challenged my emotions and beliefs. I think that these two films shed light on a situation that would not have been made aware otherwise BUT I think it could have been done in a more ethical way.
ReplyDeleteI think the movie was very good. The moment of silence in the movie were both aesthetically pleasing and compelling. I especially love the still shot of Adi’s face , his eyes said so much even though his month was not moving. I don’t feel like the film was unethical. Also Joshua asked the men if they did this or that to Ramli, which maybe me question its authenticity. Would these killers have known that they killed a man named Ramli if Joshua would not have told them during his interviews. I later read that he had come across Ramli’s stories because his death had many witness, who had seen what happened to him. At the end of the day it’s hard because we are getting the story of Ramli from what Joshua is allowing the us (the audience) to see . I didn’t really feel like the movie was authentic. I kept feeling like he was trying to build as case for Ramli not saying that what happened to Ramli didn’t happen. The film in regards to the story about Ramli just seem a little forced to me. I also felt that Joshua shouldn’t have filmed Adi Father who has Alzheimer’s disease, crawls around. After reading the article I learned that Abi was actually the one who filmed it. In addition Adi worried about his children inheriting the disease, which I found interesting but didn’t see what purpose it served the film. I mean the first film The Act of Killing definitely helped the audience understand what happened and why it happened. In my opinion the first film seemed more authentic. Anwar was there , and he knows what happened and I felt that he gained some kind of remorse for what he did to those people by the end of the film. In The Look of Silence I don’t feel like Adi gained anything, nothing felt resolved by the end of the film.
I think both of the films showed different aspects of the same story, and I can see how the Act Of killing was way more controversial and caused a bit more of a ruckus. That being said, despite the personal and showed down feel of The Look of Silence, I enjoyed the comedy and chaos of the act of killing. I think it really was a great film. Maybe it was not the most accurate or kind way to represent the things that had happened, but it did something astounding to a culture, and ultimately thats what all films should be doing in the grand scheme of things. I think the Look of Silence was a much more clean, and dressed up documentary, but I don't think it would have happened without The Act of Killing. The brutal scenes with bad makeup, and wire were not easy to watch, and many people enjoyed the latter film, however I think what makes The act of killing so great is that it really caused waves. A film that can gain that much attention and notice, does not always have to be great technically, if it is going to get you an audience and further opportunities to create more, that is quite amazing. That is the reason I prefer the Act of killing, not because of content, but because of the principal, and the bigger picture.
ReplyDeleteI feel that there’s some bait to lead me to say that Joshua was more responsible and ethical with the making of The Look of Silence than he was with The Act of Killing. But I don’t see that to be the case. Truly, I found neither documentary to be glaringly immoral.
ReplyDeleteThe reenactments shown in the Act of Killing were also planned, written, and acted by actual gangsters of the time. Aside from the documentary providing publicity and giving them the opportunity to do the reenactments, the theatrical outcome is the doing of the films’ stars. I feel that there’s a purpose to what Joshua allowed the subjects of Killing to do. And with the shuddering and raw mental conclusion that Anwar Congo reaches at the film’s end, I feel the humoring of an anti-Communist’s murderous joy unlocked a very important historical perspective.
Though I disagree with the possible immorality of The Act of Killing, I do understand the opposing perspective. For The Look of Silence, however, I see no reason for outrage over morality and ethics. The premise seemed pretty harmless for me- if not, empowering for victims and family members of the murders and torturing that occurred in 1965 thanks to Adi’s goal for confrontation. Having Adi and his parents as main subjects for following add a wholesome tone, which is so much more comfortable to watch than The Act of Killing.
The making of The Act of Killing had Josh mostly removed from the story he was telling. There were about two main characters, and many small characters on the side. That was about it. His authority is invisible, though it must have been taken seriously seeing how smoothly most of the interviewing went. Oppenheimer’s authority had definitely wavered in the making of Look of Silence. There’s much more confrontation, threats to stop the interview, and other issues between subjects and the filmmaker. This brings a lot of realism to the doc, which I appreciate.
I felt so much better while watching The Look of Silence. The Act of Killing made me feel disgusting. Not about myself- just the premise of the film and the attitudes of the subjects. Having Adi on our side for this one made me feel sane again- and I found the whole thing to be such a breath of fresh air after Wednesday.
Ok. Here we go.
ReplyDeleteThere is so much psychology, and cinematography, and philosophy in these two films that it’s hard to keep this blog post short and cohesive, but I’ll try. For starters in the film, The Act of Killing was shot differently than The Look of Silence. Not only the interviewer but Joshua Oppenhimener also says it himself in the VICE interview, saying that this was a film all about close ups. His choice in lenses, specifically the telephoto lenses with extreme shallow depth of field was a key player which aided in painting this film, The Look of Silence. From the first shot of coffee beans, it framed the aesthetic expectations for the rest of the film. The telephoto lenses are known for creating depth, and contrast between subject and environment by beautifully blurring out the background to replicate the same experience we get when we are intently focused on someone who is engaging us within our visual proximity. This literally put the audience member in Adi’s face up close and personal, and we couldn’t do anything about it, we can’t escape the emotion; where as in The Act of Killing the lens, choices were varied, (probably more use of a 50mm or 40 mm). The aesthetic purpose for these lenses are usually because for close ups you can get decent depth of field (depending on how good the lens and its aperture is), but also more importantly when shooting wide master shots or medium close ups these lenses simulates what the eyes would experience when normally walking into a room and you take everything in. Everything in frame is in focus, and there’s more information to pay attention to within the frame. In The Act of Killing if it was hard for you to watch the reenactments of these murders, the use of a lens like the 50mm prime or 40mm prime didn’t restrict our own field of view to JUST the characters and their emotions, but rather we could comfortably let our eyes gaze around the environment where the killings happened (which was also useful for that story telling purpose).
Joshua did something miraculous though (intentionally or unintentionally) which was waking Anwar up from his illusion; the reason I say this is miraculous is because, really, it is an art to be able to wake someone up this way.
Joshua does this exact same thing with Anwar by walking him through his own experiences of killing, then having them reenact it, then putting him in the position of victims point of view, which caused an unbelievable rush of emotions resulting in some form of transformation. A revelatory experience in which Anwar began questioning his actions, his purpose, and the meaning behind what he did… if there was any meaning to be found from the carnage of his actions.
Personally, I think it is hard for documentary films to have a set ethical standard in this strict and rigid academic sense. One man may be able to carve out mount Rushmore, but not every mountain face should be mount Rushmore and furthermore, not every sculptor should use the same tools. That would be terribly boring.
Still one of the most powerful uses of The Act of Killing was how Joshua showed Anwar that behind all this illusion of being a mobster, a big bad scary man, with hardly any emotions but a plethora of connections, that there was ultimately something more to him that he had forgotten, the depth of his own humanity.
- Rashad
These were both incredibly moving and unforgettable documentaries. I did like the Look of Silence more for the use of Adi. The way he was used to tell the story was so interesting to watch because at times it felt like his doc but Joshua was always pulling the strings. I started the doc wanting them to interview Adi but realized by the end that his interview was his reaction to the TV. My favorite part of Act of Killing was the end in which he watched his performance and just seeing his face told you more than anything he said after. This goes back to the question of "was that authentic?" What he said could go both ways but his blank expression in the end when he watched himself showed disgust that I don't believe he could fake. Watching Adi watch the men talk about his brother was the way I was watching the first doc, expressionless but with a hint of disgust for it. Adi also did a great job of keeping it together in terms of it getting emotional, had he broke down and cried in front of the men it could have gone a different way and he wanted to see a genuine feeling of guilt from the men more than he wanted an apology.
ReplyDeleteI think the approach this doc took crossed some lines with how they handled things ethically, some parts were uncomfortable to watch, especially the old man accusing Adi of talking politics, but it was necessary for more authenticity. Because those scenes were tense I listened more to what was being said. This goes back to the idea of authority and because of how it was filmed and the general lack of compromise in terms of sparing details, Joshua had the power to choose and he had built these relationships well enough to demand that authority and respect so even when things did get tense, it never got violent.
The quiet nature of Look of Silence was a great contrast to the obnoxious ranting that the death squad leaders would do in Act if Killing. They both worked to show the affect it had on those we followed. Adi was generally expressionless and neutral so being quiet worked to let us feel for him and his family. The Act of Killing was a bit louder to show the pride and general lack of guilt that the men felt while telling the stories. Each one was very interesting and difficult to process for how much or how little each person was affected by something so disgusting and horrible.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAct of Killing
ReplyDeleteWhen are we going to stop giving these psycho people exposure on mainstream media. Keep promoting violence and you will get more and more of it in the world. We have turned Anwar into a celebrity. Love inspires love. Violence inspires violence. I’d like to start at the beginning of the end with The Act of Killing. I say the beginning because I think that’s when Anwar started to truly live, and live in the nightmare that he created. In the end, all we see is an old man grasping for inner peace he may never get. I found myself with a jarring, contradicting image, a killer you want to see punished, while at the same time realizing that he is also a human being. The filmmaker focuses on Anwar because he felt his pain so close to the surface and was able to pull it out of him. Through his youth. Anwar was actively killing like an animal. No thought was put into his actions nor his soul and we see this unfold through the documentary.
We hear these men talk so candidly and proudly about the acts they committed. I was taken aback at how delighted and noble they appear to be. So noble in fact that they created an entire documentary on the sole purpose of showing the world how they went about doing it. They wrote the script, acted as themselves and as their victims. Yet, they never let it sit. They don’t sit with what they’re doing until Anwar is the victim. The doc felt like a loop and I can imagine that’s how their lives felt. Killing and killing and killing. These men were so ruthless, vicious, and barbaric to what they were doing. I’m struggling to write this because I don’t know what words to use. I’ll say this. I think the director allowed and asked the men to re-enact their methods of killings in popular American films because, it reached out to us in a way that maybe, just maybe we could relate to what they were doing and what we were seeing. I think they thought that because it was in a movie, it gives people the validation that it is okay. If John Wayne can do it, so can I. Film is an incredibly powerful medium that can be used for good but also terrible terrible things. This documentary had a huge impact on Indonesia making them face their dark past. I would like to know if the director was anticipating such a response and if not, is he happy with what he got from his film? Why did he make the film and did he get out of it what he was expecting?
Look of Silence.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know how anyone could be bored while watching this. Yes you have to pay attention, but if you do, these films aren’t boring. The Look of Silence was beautiful. Every cut was stunning. This film was also more personal and for me easier to relate to. The Act of Killing was more political until the end while the Look of Silence is more emotional throughout. This film was so hard to watch because it’s so silent and still. Humans attention spans are so small that we stop paying attention after 3 minutes. This film, you HAD to pay attention especially because your main source of information were through the subtitles. I felt uncomfortable at times watching so closely and it really challenged my mind to stay present. I loved the subtle cricket sounds, it was calming and quite the contrast to the other film. Props to the filmmakers for putting so much detail into the editing. I think this film is important because it humaine and brings back the emotion into the mass murders. I wouldn’t say The Look of Silence is a sequel however, it’s a separate film showing the other side of the killings. I don’t think the filmmaker made this film to justify or give a response to his other, I simply think it was to show the two sides of the story. These two films were mirrors. They were made completely different as well. In The Act of Killing, we see the full picture, we see the actions being committed. In the Look of Silence we see the reaction. The emotions of the close ups in subjects eyes. It’s a closer more personal film while the other is further away because the topic is more distant. More unbearable to grasp and the filmmaker captures that through his cinematography. I enjoyed both for different reasons and will never watch them again.
Oppenheimer's approach to both films were very different and I think that had a lot to do with whose story we were following.
ReplyDeleteIn The Act of Killing, Anwar is bragging to us about all these horrible crimes he's committed. His motivation to be a part of this documentary and to create his own film was to immortalize his legacy so people will never forget. Although Anwar was very proud, he was also not genuine... at all. Obviously the disgusting things he's done haunt him to this day and I think he was using these projects to try to make himself feel better. Because of that, the approach to this film was more of a "Oh wow, look at this terrible shit. People are fucked up". The audience is gawking at these ridiculous people and we leave this film with a bad taste in our mouths.
The Sound of Silence, which is led by Adi, is genuine and was made in an effort to find the truth. Adi doesn't put on a facade for the camera. He is a sweet man that wants to know, as do the rest of us, why people would do these horrible things. Perhaps he though that going to these criminals and their families about his brother and these other victims would force them to think about their actions. It's almost as if this film was created for closure for Ramli's death.
The way Adi and Anwar communicate plays a big role in both films as well. Adi is looking for actually communication between him and the criminals. He wants to educate them and in return he wants their truth. Anwar, on the other hand, is just trying to tell everyone about himself and he doesn't want to hear disagreeing opinions.
I believe that it's pretty important to watch both of these together. If you watch The Act of Killing without The Sound of Silence, you learn all of these horrible things and you're just left kind of confused and sick. If you watch the Sound of Silence without The Act of Killing, you do get a lot of the story but you might not understand the whole picture of the events that took place. At least, I don't think I would. The two of them together achieves the biggest impact.
These are both definitely for mature audiences. I feel like the impact that Joshua Oppenheimer was trying to create was to show us how fucked people are. Honestly, I don't know how to articulate my thoughts on this. Basically, he's showing us that a whole government got away with mass murder, AGAIN, and there is not justice for the victims. History repeats itself and people are quick to turn a blind eye on what's going on in the world until it affects them.
Take everything I said with a grain of salt. I'm not sure I know what I'm saying.
I think Joshua Oppenheimer’s approach to these two films were very different I feel like The Act of Killing is suppose to have a slightly more laid back tone, for the subject matter that is. I think this is mainly due to the fact there is a very little taste of the victims perspective of the conflict, compared to The Look of Silence. I think if you did show these movies to people you should definitely start with The Act of Killing. It eases you into the subject matter and I feel is less intense as The Look of Silence. But also with this combination I feel like it gives The Look of Silence a deeper impact on the viewer. I think Joshua is ethical enough with these two movies. The only problem I had with it was just the part in The Look of Silence where Joshua is just showing the optician’s father scooting around the floor and him being very confused. I feel like this part wasn’t too necessary to the story. I feel it was just to show how emotionally scared the family was, but I think they already hammered the point in enough with the father thinking he was 17. And I’m not 100% sure that the father's condition can be directly attributed to the loss of their son. The man was 103 after all. But going back to ethics, I think a movie that dives this deep into genocide doesn’t really need to have a very high standard of ethics, and like I said before I don’t think there was anything wrong with the ethics of the film. If anything these movies have made me question what ethics really is. Because I think ethics can be as subjective as art can be. Ethics only applies to the crowd it is in. A certain kind of ethics can be very different on the other side of the planet. I am not 100% sure on the question you asked about authority, if you meant how he personally shows it himself or in his film? I feel that Joshua had a high amount of authority in The Look of Silence, maybe more than within The Act of Killing. This is mainly because I guess there is less of Joshua asking the questions, and the fact that the film is more intimate with its interviews. In The Act of Killing Joshua does get a lot out of the small group of gangsters and paramilitary he is with for the majority of the film but it's when they are filming the village raid scene that it feels as if Joshua has no say or control. I think the max amount of authority we see in this one is near the end when Josh is having a conversation with the main guy from the Act of Killing, and he is not really just saying to say yes as it seemed he might have done before but he is giving it to the guy straight and this bothers him. Just some final thoughts, I think Anwar is a little more redeemable than his friend from out of town at the end mainly because it looks like Anwar is legitimately starting to look like he feels actual remorse and regret. The part where he talks about him not being able to sleep, and that he tosses and turns I feel might just be some BS that he was making up at the beginning, but that dry heaving at the end sounded very legitimate. And I would also just like to say that before we watched these films I had no idea there was a genocide in Indonesia, and makes me wonder how many other genocides might be out there that I don’t know about.
ReplyDeleteSean McGann
ReplyDeleteThe Act of Killing is now my favorite documentary of all time. It's captivating from the very first frame and is unlike any documentary I've ever seen before. While it may be seen as unethical to show the murderous dictatorship's side of the story, and allow them to relive history, it helped me delve into the mind of someone who would commit such heinous atrocities. It's a very risky brand of journalism and filmmaking, but Oppenheimer managed to pull it off with breathtaking results.
It's also quite interesting that what got me to find the gangsters completely irredeemable wasn't the murdering, extortion, rape, racism and genocide. I obviously condemn all those actions, but I wasn't in complete shock. It was when they admitted to rapping 14 year old girls. That made my jaw drop. Ironically, five days after I viewed the movie, a journalist by the name of Milo Yiannopoulos was universally decried for supporting pedophilia, despite having advocated Islamophobia, transphobia and racism in the past. These two instances really put into perspectives how we as a society can excuse only so much hatred and bigotry, but when children are in danger, we drop everything.
The film is also aesthetically amazing. The cinematography and lighting only enhance the cinematic experience. The editing always allows a powerful moment to happen, never overstaying its welcome. This is a masterpiece that is what real, candid documentary filmmaking is all about.
10/10
I think in many ways the director was unethical, mainly in The Look of Silence. Joshua used Adi to question the killers and consequently put him at risk. Sure, he may have agreed to do the film, but Joshua doesn't really know the gravity of it, as he can leave any time but Adi's life and family are all in Indonesia. The Act of Killing also has some unethical points. Many parts can be used as propaganda for the killers, and the making of it can reignite the feelings that the killers had toward Communists, who they still hate. Also, it gives the killers a platform to preach from and spread their hate.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, both films were fantastic in their cinematography and the way they portrayed two sides of the story. Both films bring this horrible genocide to light and show in their own ways how misguided the killings and continued persecutions are. However, from an ethical standpoint the lines blur, and the filmmaker put the people involved at risk for his own benefit.
Ian Roozrokh
ReplyDeleteJoshua Oppenheimer set up a beautiful juxtaposition in perspective of the events that took place in Indonesia during the 60s. Previously in my education, I had not known anything about these events or the repercussions of them. Although these films played an important role into giving people an education on a tragic event that goes unheard of in my education system, personally, these films did a reasonable job of grabbing my attention and a poor job of keeping it.
In The Act of Killing, we are given a perspective on the humanization of mass murderers, and in the Look of Silence, we watch the repercussions of the demonstrations, yet both of these films lacked a structure that would have kept me more engaged and emotionally tied into the story of the films.
I wanted to feel more empathetic to the families that were interviewed. I wanted to feel their pain and understand it. Bouncing around the interviews with someone who I really didn’t understand why they led the interviews (more research on my part) was not effective for me. I knew the structure halfway through (both films) and I was waiting for something to change. I was needing something to tie me in and keep me invested; I could have ended it in the middle and felt the same as when I had finished the films.
Lastly on a positive note, the films made me want to learn more about these events and have made me look deeper into the subject. Awareness and knowledge is power, and I’m glad to have watched these films then to not have watched them at all.
3.5/5 Also apologize for submitting this late, Dan. I’ll like buy u lunch or something. Forgive me. <3
Sean McGann
ReplyDeleteThe Look of Silence, while not as captivating as The Act of Killing, is just as impactful. To be able to hear from the families of the victims of The Act of Killing is necessary. However, there are some minor nitpicks. The parts with Adi watching the interviews of his brothers' killers was always jarring, as he not only said nothing, but displayed zero emotion.
I will say that the film's biggest strength is how suspenseful each scene with Adi and a killer is. You know that, if Adi says the wrong thing, he and his family will be in grave danger. Watching him attempt to address the elephant in the room every time is both satisfying and nail-biting. As a followup to The Act of Killing, it's pretty conventional in comparison. As a documentary on its own merits, it's still very recommended viewing.
10/10
After reading several other's responses to the film, The Act of Killing, I can say that my view and opinion on it does not stray much from majority view; that is to say it was unarguably well made and expertly crafted. There is so much to talk about in this film, and as I sit here and begin writing this at 2:00 am before class, I hope that I can cover the bases briskly enough that I can get a decent amount of sleep, but I am doubting it is possible. (However not to the extent that I have serious doubts in my mind regarding my hope for humanity after delving into it)
ReplyDeleteAs Rashad pointed out in his analysis, meticulous attention was given to the film's cinematography. As I am currently focusing my studies at Columbia around cinematography, I find this extremely interesting as well. I agree with Rashad about the stylistic differences between the two films. The Act of Killing was shot using a style that favored wider lenses and therefore made it feel more practical. I believe this technique helped the camera units Oppenheimer shot with capture the scenes in a very pragmatic way, and by doing so helped The Act of Killing not deteriorate into stylishness. For example, the camera operation throughout the film was very controlled and always very stable; no fancy camera moves, which we have become so used to in mainstream films, burdened the story in any way.
I cannot speculate as well on elements such as sound design, but I did notice during our viewing in class that the only music played in The Act of Killing was played off as being diegetic. By this I am referring to the scenes in the shopping malls with the families of the Pancasila death-squad leaders, the music during the pseudo-propaganda opening scene, and the leaders' singing to themselves to anesthetize. These moments added a haunting feeling, as the music in the mall was either manipulated in post to create the echoey, haunting diegetic soundtrack... or more disturbingly, though unlikely, recorded that way in the malls themselves.
CONT'D
ReplyDeleteAll that said, speaking only about the craft of this film and analyzing it only through a lens that does not take into account its broader implications outside the world of filmmaking would do it a great disservice, and would be a disservice to the Indonesian people. The Act of Killing is a film about empathy, its potential to unite the world, and also its boundaries. Throughout the film we are lead down a dark and horrifying path of empathy by Joshua Oppenheimer. Realizing Anwar Congo's humanness is the most painful act of empathy we could be asked to perform. He is a mass murderer, a sadist, a gangster, and a hypocrite, and in many ways a complete enigma; he loves to dress fashionably, seems genuinely kind-hearted when he speaks to those around him, and I believe he genuinely regrets what he has done. As Oppenheimer stated in an interview I watched with Al-Jazeera English, once you are able to wrap your head around these atrocities and the fact that not all the people who have committed them are psychopaths, our understanding of good and evil as we know it crumbles. I believe that evil is not a word that can be intrinsically tied to any human individual.. that it can only be applied to choices we make to ignore our natural empathic responses and find increasingly complex and disgusting ways to remove ourselves from violence, and in the case of the film, genocide specifically. Can the people in the real world outside the cushions and comforts of the first world use this to a meaningful end? I don't know, but I'm not hopeful in that department.
At the very least, I think this film has contributed to my personal ability to try to understand different people's perspectives I meet in my own, and not judge them too harshly. That's not to say I know I wouldn't react violently if I met a man who killed members of my family, as Ramli did in The Look of Silence.
I realize I have not yet written about The Look of Silence. I will not go into as much detail with it as I believe The Act of Killing is the piece that really works to challenge our perceptions of morality and hopefully lead us to discover all our inherent humanism.
That being said, I think Look of Silence employed more stylistic elements to tell the story of discovery, and the uncovering of the truth. The recurring shot of the beans shot with a paper-thin depth of field was the most memorable symbol in the film to me. The shallow DOF combined with the questions the children asks about it, and the stories they made up really drove home at tapping into that theme of empathy.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand they’re chronicling the same events in two very different ways, I feel that they are two totally different types of documentary. I walked away from both feeling equally shitty, somewhat enlightened, and overall upset. I think in regards to ethics, the Act of Killing seems to be a few steps over the line. But documentary has a responsibility to shed light on these things if nothing else. I feel very strongly that these films are propaganda for the side whose voices haven’t been heard. The events in Indonesia are known within the community but are ignored by those in power. These two films together are the epitome of “Speaking truth to power,” a major pillar of doc filmmaking. Oppenheimer is doing a service to those affected by the mass killings in Indonesia, although painful. You cannot learn about such horrendous moments in history without being shocked and disgusted. He would be doing the audience a disservice if he made them comfortable with this history.
I also think he acknowledges this in The Look of Silence. He shows Adi Rukun watching the explanations and we see his discomfort. We see it because the discomfort is inherent. We cannot be told this story without acknowledging how horrific it should make everybody feel.
Oppenheimer’s duty was not to just show us what these death squads did. His efforts lied in his capturing of what human beings are capable of. He just had to turn the camera on and tell them to explain. I think that is the most horrific aspect- that Oppenheimer kept his voice out as much as possible giving the illusion to the audience that this wasn’t prodded out of the killers at all. They wanted to share as much detail as they could.
Aesthetically speaking, I think both docs are beautiful. The Look of Silence provided for more opportunities of cleanliness and structure, whereas the Act of Killing seemed a bit more observational, putting cinematography aside, often, to get the information across first. What I liked most was the effort put in to show that this is a two-part documentary. There are paralleled shots while there are also shots juxtaposing each other: somber, still interview shots with unsteady, following shots to portray the acts.
I can’t really say which I liked better. What I liked about each film was extremely different, The Act of Killing being a no-holds-barred look into how a human being can break the mold of morality and what it might to do them, and The Look of Silence being the voyeur’s perspective of that breakdown of morality and what THAT can to do a human being, too. I feel like I enjoyed my viewing experience of The Look of Silence a bit more because it was almost like a softcore version of The Act of Killing. I somewhat respect The Act of Killing more because of its ability to not turn the camera away. Both brought very different approaches to show very different perspectives.
I thought that both the Act of Killing and The look of Silence were two very well made documentaries. If it weren't for these films, I wouldn't have known that this horrific Indonesian genocide happened in 1965. With that said, I cant help but feel a bit ignorant and uneducated.
ReplyDeleteThe content in both of these films are unreal. The Act of Killing showed how heartless and wrong these former killers were. Watching these men reenact the types of murders they committed was very unsettling. These men were expressing joy and happiness while they were showing us examples of the fastest and most effective killing strategies. A detail I found disturbing was that these killers say they were influenced by American movies. I think that the killers interviewed in the Act of Killing had very little remorse and some had none at all. This may or may not have been from constantly drinking the blood of their victims.
I am glad that we watched the Act of killing first. Even though both of these films are about the same events, there is a lot of contrast. Having Adi interview killers gave this film a different perspective because he was personally effected by these careless murders. I really don't understand how he was able to be so cool and calm while he interviewed these monsters including the man who was responsible for his brothers death.
I thought that The Look of Silence was a better film in my opinion. I say this because in this film, you really get to go inside the minds of these killers and hear how they justify what they did. Its crazy because its all just brainwashed activity and propaganda. These "communists" were just ordinary people who were supposedly doing "bad things." It seems that the Indonesian military took the red scare way too much. Finally, I am curious what will happen in the coming years, since lots of these killers are still in power. Some of them even said that this very well could happen again.
The first time I watched the Act of Killing was in my writing and rhetoric class last semester. My teacher didn’t really have an explanation for showing us the film, besides filling up a class period before thanksgiving break. So going into the film I was completely unaware of this doc nor these horrific deaths in Indonesia. And just when I was so involved watching the film, the class ended and my teacher ended it with, “So finish it if you want”. And I was so astonished how someone couldn’t finish it! To think back about my initial thoughts after watching it the first time, that feeling of emptiness was heightened the second time around on the big screen in class. Almost more when you left us with the question of, “was Anwar’s final scene an act or real?” I second guessed and ultimately changed my mind of what I thought his conclusion was, like I said I felt empty the first time, how could you not? You can’t say you feel anything good after that, just remorse for having no idea of these acts and a poor view of the society in Indonesia. The only I could say that didn’t make me totally hate Anwar for wanting to reenact these acts were the fact that he seemed to really have grief at the end of this, and his weird/awkward coughing thing really sold me that he was so disturbed by it all. But by the question you gave us I contemplated it all and ultimately changed my mind into believing that it was an act. My belief is that if he can only have that kind of response after only reenacting it, YEARS later and at the very end of this all? Yeah, no. Watching it last semester vs now, I can definitely say I viewed it differently in other ways, such as visually. I’m pretty sure I can remember being bored and not interested or acknowledge the shots that were taken, but I realize now that this is the type of film you NEED to watch one time through to fully be engaged with the story, and a second time to connect everything you see with what’s being told. The sound of silence was in many ways trying to evoke the same emotion but in a completely different way, more pulling on the heart string. I think that it can somewhat appeal to a larger audience but I think if you’re gonna do one of them, then you must do the other to fully gain a well rounded opinion and outtake of the overall story Josh is trying to tell. Ethically, I don't particularly see anything necessarily “wrong” but I can see how some might think just the fact that these were murders carrying out a reenactment, that alone could be ethically wrong. But all I can say to them, is would you get the same view as you did if it was just a two hour documentary filled with just the history, statistics, and interviews? I don't think I would.
ReplyDelete