The film focuses mainly on two of the most notorious death squad leaders in North Sumatra, Anwar Congo and Adi Zulkadry. Oppenheimer, from behind the camera, states that it was worse for the victims because they knew they were going to be killed, whereas Anwar was only acting.
The stamp of approval lent by executive producers Errol Morris who brilliantly dissected the fog of war and Werner Herzog who once told me that "I am not afraid of anything"is significant, their names jointly personifying both the stark realism and poetic metaphysics of the unflinching documentary form.
He talks of nightmares and regrets; by the end of the film he is retching while walking around an area where many of the killings took place. He revisits the rooftop where he claims many of his killings took place, and retches repeatedly while describing how he had killed people during the genocide.
Suddenly it feels as contrived as a dramatized version. They grin and mug just as they also take it very, very seriously. So by way of history that we can understand backward we learn little here.
Oppenheimer seeing Congo so moved and almost ashamed for what he had done, said this to him. Today, Anwar is revered by the right wing of a paramilitary organization, Pemuda Pancasilathat grew out of the death squads.
It actually turns around what we think of as documentaries. Sets are built, special effects are created, rehearsals held. Is any other country innocent of much the same? Spoilers The Act of Killing is a documentary based on the Indonesian genocide in The next day they found his body beneath a barrel and then buried it by the side of the road, "like a goat", so frightened were they that they too would be taken.
Kierkegaard said, "life can only be understood backward, but it must be lived forward".
Having more footage dealing with the psychological aftermath of the recreations — and allowing that aspect to dominate the back half of the movie — might have delivered the profound insight Oppenheimer and his co-directors were obviously shooting for.
How do they see themselves in what they see of themselves? Video playback prompts complaints that a killer would never have worn white trousers on the job, and a discussion of the influence of sadistic movies that these would-be film-stars promise to surpass.
So these re enactments would be our focal point of entry into the self who lived through them, memory brought alive. So I made a point to see the authorial version of close to three hours, hoping to land in a broader swim that goes out in search.
Boasting about killing was the right material to do that with because it is a symptom of impunity. There is, nonetheless, a queasy feeling to the documentary that will turn off more than a few viewers. The most charismatic of them, Anwar Congo, who has a radical hair dye job a third of the way through in reaction to the rushes, is slightly haunted by his acts, he admits, which he tries to forget with music and dancing.
This entry was posted in Culture and tagged Movie Reviews. Conversely however, it means that if we hope to understand history in a significant way, so as to be able to recognize the forces at play in the here and now and not have to wait until later, we should try placing ourselves in it as something that was lived going forward.
In other words, the gangsters would become filmmakers and actors themselves. Harrowing, shocking, and at times unbearable to watch Anwar Congo, at first preening for the camera—constantly fiddling with fake teeth, worrying about his hair color—tries to show he regrets the things he has done.Film Review: The Act of Killing Annie E.
Pohlman University of Queensland Abstract. Three years after the release of Joshua Oppenheimer'sThe Act of Killing(), which explores the massacres from the perspective of the killers, I review the impact of the documentary on.
Throughout every genre since the beginning of filmmaking, the act of murder has been represented in limitless variations, with an enormous array of assailants, repercussions and emotional consequence tagged onto each depiction. Whether the act is carried out in the horror genre by a remorseless. Act of Killing (Jagal) is awesome: a documentary film showing real algojos (assassins) who killed many PKI (communist party members/supporters), in their own words.
It's unique story telling has successfully made important people, including current parliament members, admitting brutality, killing and on-going premanism (thuggery) that's clearly. The Act of Killing is an odd movie.
The Oscar-nominated feature documentary is, in part, a look at mass murderers grown old, an examination of their feelings (or lack thereof) regarding the crimes they committed decades previously. This film is something that needs to be shown to the world, but only to those who are mature enough to view.
I will never say I love this film, based on it's subject matter, but it is a brilliant documentary that almost feels like a shoe-in for the Oscars. "The Act of Killing" is superb in it's messages%.
Joshua Oppenheimer's stunning, surreal documentary asks unrepentant perpetrators of the Indonesian genocide to recreate their actions for the camera. The result is a history lesson, a.Download