#actofkilling

[truestory2014]

A Brutal Truth

I found the Act of Killing to be a fascinatingly honest film, which I think says a lot about the human character. Especially in the beginning of the film, Anwar Congo, the Indonesian gangster and death squad leader at the center of our story, was more than happy to share every detail about how he came to be the most notorious man in Indonesia. He happily described his political ascent from being a street movie ticket scalper to becoming a cold blooded political killer with no reservations, primarily because Anwar was proud of his work. Pride, it appears is the most honest emotion, our storytellers want the audience to know the truth because they are proud of their past, proud of their roles as killers and gangsters that rival their Hollywood idols. Pride tells the whole story because the storyteller wants you to know every detail, every smart move they made, every government official they met and every communist they killed. The audience should see what incredible men they were for their work against the communists, so they tell you every painstaking detail. Throughout this class we have seen a lot of emotional reposes to truth and storytelling, hurt and the pain of deception from Bechdel, familial happiness from Polley, nostalgia from Didion; yet none of these storytellers could achieve an ultimate objective truth. Anwar and his cronies did because they was no confusion in their emotional connection to the story, no regret and nothing to hide, they told the audience everything because despite the heinousness of their actions they are proud of their work and they want people to know the full story. As uncomfortable as the criminals openness and pride is to the audience, we are getting a truthful account, they are showing us everything they have accomplished.

[jacqteo1234]

A Brutal Truth

I found the Act of Killing to be a fascinatingly honest film, which I think says a lot about the human character. Especially in the beginning of the film, Anwar Congo, the Indonesian gangster and death squad leader at the center of our story, was more than happy to share every detail about how he came to be the most notorious man in Indonesia. He happily described his political ascent from being a street movie ticket scalper to becoming a cold blooded political killer with no reservations, primarily because Anwar was proud of his work. Pride, it appears is the most honest emotion, our storytellers want the audience to know the truth because they are proud of their past, proud of their roles as killers and gangsters that rival their Hollywood idols. Pride tells the whole story because the storyteller wants you to know every detail, every smart move they made, every government official they met and every communist they killed. The audience should see what incredible men they were for their work against the communists, so they tell you every painstaking detail. Throughout this class we have seen a lot of emotional reposes to truth and storytelling, hurt and the pain of deception from Bechdel, familial happiness from Polley, nostalgia from Didion; yet none of these storytellers could achieve an ultimate objective truth. Anwar and his cronies did because they was no confusion in their emotional connection to the story, no regret and nothing to hide, they told the audience everything because despite the heinousness of their actions they are proud of their work and they want people to know the full story. As uncomfortable as the criminals openness and pride is to the audience, we are getting a truthful account, they are showing us everything they have accomplished.

[lindzmull]

Oscars 2014: Act of Killing passed over, but leads to change in Indonesia

Joshua Oppenheimer's account of the anti-communist purge in 60s Indonesia was overlooked by the Academy, but the director remains upbeat about a film that has made a genuine difference

In Indonesia, official acknowledgement of the massacres had hitherto been almost non-existent. However, government officials were forced to respond to the film, not least when an outcry in China following the film's Oscar nomination shone a spotlight on the Chinese victims of the death squads.

Says Oppenheimer: "Whether or not we won the award, the nomination led the government to acknowledge what happened was wrong. That's a significant about-face in the struggle against impunity and that's something that wouldn't have happened without the attention from the Oscars."

[lh4mit]

Let's begin by correcting a myth: the film is not banned in Indonesia. Director Joshua Oppenheimer deliberately avoided censorship by not submitting the film for approval, predicting it would be rejected. Since the film is not banned, private screenings are not technically illegal, and are thereby protected by law from the possibility of a violent response by those who disagree with its message.

A group of 60 Indonesian crew members have opted not to list their names in the film's credits, including an anonymous Jakarta-based co-director, reflecting the sensitivity of the topic in Indonesia. Progress has been made to address the killings in the 16 years since the end of the New Order, though mostly from the side of the persecuted left. The report by Komnas HAM has been rejected by the Attorney General and national leaders have refused to front reconciliation efforts. 

The Act of Killing is not a perfect representation of Indonesia's history in the 1960s and it should not be uncritically accepted by Western audiences as a portrait of Indonesia today. At the same time, the power of the film's narrative should not be underestimated. Through its relatively free circulation among young Indonesians and its rise to global attention at the Oscars, the film serves as a starting point for addressing an otherwise forgotten period of Indonesia's history.

[404040s]

http://twitter.com/TheActofKilling/media/grid

[sameantics]

[huntingfordtom]

Open City Docs Fest 2013 Report - featuring The Act of Killing director Joshua Oppenheimer, British documentary legend Molly Dineen, and social anthropologist festival founder Michael Stewart. Click on the image for original article on www.ideastap.com

As a young independent filmmaker I was nervous about Open City Docs Fest. 

I pictured myself on the periphery of a great throng of swanky film executives and ineffably charming directors, all sharp elbows and scything wit, looking down at me over tortoiseshell spectacles for a split second before signing big money deals and chortling at each other’s brilliance. 

I arrived late for my first event on Friday afternoon and proceeded to sweat profusely over the press desk. A volunteer escorted me to a dark UCL lecture theatre like a lost child, and I shuffled awkwardly into a seat as my guilty silhouette played on the pull-down screen. I was there for The Misfits, a short film double-bill. First up was Boys, an engaging, observational documentary telling the story of an adoption home for troubled children; but it was the Railway Redemption that really took me away. With an almost-sepia hue enhancing the expertly framed tableaux, and eery, reverbing keyboard music, I was transported to Sri Lanka through a moving story of reunion. My nerves slipped away, and I felt free to enjoy ensuing events without worrying I should be whispering in someone’s ear or throwing business cards around. 

The following day I took up my seat among an expectant audience for the much-anticipated The Act of Killing. In a bizarre and remarkable film, director Joshua Oppenheimer follows a group of Indonesian gangsters, somehow encouraging them to dramatise the methods they used to execute thousands of communists during the genocide of 1965, which they do with relish in a prolonged carnival of fake blood, burning villages, and intimately recorded reenactments of their real life atrocities. Unsurprisingly, the film caused a huge amount of debate. The director’s Q&A masterclass was a compelling spectacle – it was an exciting moment to meet Oppenheimer before this film gathers the momentum and interest it surely will, and he was supremely skilled in intellectualising so eloquently his involvement in the gangsters’ lives. 

Totally absorbed by this enthralling film and the questions raised by its style and form, I had now forgotten my early trepidation and was chatting to anyone with a face. There was something ad-hoc and friendly about Open City – a community of film lovers and filmmakers in central London coming together to engage with stories and debate issues. When I interviewed festival director Michael Stewart, he summed this up by suggesting, “The whole spirit of the thing is our spirit”. This was not a UCL event, nor a networking meat market; it was a programme of documentary events to engage audiences on issues that matter.

My perspective had changed so much that later, in the booze aisle of a supermarket, I confidently approached a festivalgoer to say I thought a weighty question of hers in the Act of Killing Q&A had had spoken for a lot of people in the room.  Clutching our metal baskets, we chatted excitedly before she went on to say, “Well you must come to my Q&A tomorrow”. I peered a little closer and realised my shortsightedness. I already had tickets: it was Molly Dineen; and her masterclass, Portraits of Britain, was my favourite event of the weekend. She even gave me her email address.