The result is a riotous confusion of genres that both exacerbates and delights the senses and the mind. At the showing I saw in Philadelphia, several comments afterwards were critical and dismissive of the film -- as in, how dare this guy give such a powerful venue of expression to such loathsome human beings.
Anwar Congo, center in hat. At right, Joshua Oppenheimer. by unknown
It's like someone handed over the reins of a film production crew to Boston mob butcher Whitey Bulger and said, "How did you do it, Whitey? As we just heard in testimony in your trial, how did you strangle that young woman while her stepfather watched? Here, use this young woman volunteer and re-enact it for the cameras. Then, we'll get the stepfather to re-enact how he dragged her dead body down to the cellar and extracted all her teeth with pliers. It'll be great! And, Whitey " this is performance art, so have fun doing it. Smile a lot."
That absurd scenario begins to get at the bizarre cinematic artifact Joshua Oppenheimer has wrought on film. The only difference is the Indonesian death squad killers who were strangling people and chopping off their heads did those deeds back in 1965 for political reasons, not Boston mob priorities. For me, that makes all the difference, turning a self-indulgent, macabre glorification of crime into a unique and politically potent work of genius.
Killing and torture have always been with us -- and today is no exception. The so-called "terrorists" of the world do it, as do the top-down, reactionary power centers trying desperately to hold onto power. The United States does it (more cleanly than anyone else, of course) with its evolving new policy of drones, special operations assassination teams and possibly other even more secret operations. The post-coup Egyptian military government just killed over 75 peaceful demonstrators with gunshots to the head and heart. As power continues to devolve and fragment into more diverse global power centers, killing may become a mix of classic large scale operations with newer, more precise forms of the art. In this age of information, the challenge will be how to mobilize propaganda support to justify, or overlook, killing as well as to recruit the actors needed to do the killing. The Act of Killing is unabashedly about such actors.
(Oppenheimer was initially interested in the victims of the 1965 extermination campaign, but when he came upon the individuals in this film he decided it was too much to pass up. He has said he plans to do a follow-up film on the victims.)
Anwar Congo tells of going with his fellow killers to a movie theater to watch American gangster movies to work themselves into the right mood for killing. He proudly sees himself as a "gangster," which he translates to mean "free man" in the sense the capacity for ruthless violence assures one's freedom to do as one wishes. When the movie was over, they'd walk across the street to the police station, where cops had picked up and collected people for them to kill. He says beating a person to death became too messy, so he came up with a better solution. One end of a long, stiff wire is attached to a solid object on the wall. The wire is then wrapped around the victim's neck. A piece of wood is tied to the other end of the wire, and Congo gleefully shows us on a mock victim how he would yank until the writhing victim choked and expired. This was a much more efficient process. Less mess to clean up.
Congo shows off his wire strangling method and, right, undergoes mock torture by unknown
What makes this macabre film so compelling is the knowledge that it's not fiction. For an American, knowing the US government fully supported the policy gives it an extra frisson. It was a time when the US was becoming mired in a counter-insurgency war in Vietnam, so it was more than happy to encourage and aid a local counter-insurgency purge in Indonesia.
"The United States was directly involved to the extent that they provided the Indonesian Armed Forces with assistance that they introduced to help facilitate the mass killings," says Brad Simpson, a Princeton historian and author of Economists with Guns: Authoritarian Development and US-Indonesian Relations, 1960-1968. He said this at a 2009 conference on the killings in Singapore, held there because the topic is taboo in Indonesia.
After the defeat of the Japanese in World War Two, as with the French in Vietnam, Dutch colonialists wanted to re-gain their colony in Indonesia. A revolution was fought from 1945 to 1949, at which point the Dutch gave the effort up. Sukarno (single name) ruled through the tumultuous 1965 period. He leaned to the left and, afraid of a western coup in 1965, announced he was making an alliance with China. Sparked by the assassination of six generals that year apparently by the PKI communists, military general Suharto (also a single name) took over the reins from a rather tired and decadent Sukarno. It was at this point, the mass killings were unleashed.
Richard E. Lewis, author of the novel Bones of the Dark Moon set in 1965 Indonesia where he was raised as a western kid, writes of avoiding one particular surfers beach that was a notorious killing site. He felt it was rich with ghosts from "" the other world, what the Balinese call the unseen realm. " The Balinese have a word for places like this -- angker -- " which is not really "spooky' but mystical, spiritually charged, dangerous." In Indonesia, the The Act of Killing is banned, but it has a sort of samizdat life on-line, where it no doubt stirs up this unseen, dangerous realm of angker.