The ethical decisions behind The Act of Killing are atrocious when compared to the other documentaries we have watched in class so far. Some of the central issues are documenting the reenactment of gruesome murders that took place in Indonesia in the 1960s. Besides the obvious issue of documenting these crimes, another issue is the making of the film itself. When I watched the film I couldn’t help but think to myself: Was the history behind the stories important enough to be resurrected in a cinematic form and shown to Indonesians who didn’t necessarily want to be reminded of the terrible crimes that the gangsters committed? As much as I enjoyed the film and found it very interesting, when I consider the history and people behind it, I feel like the justification for the making of it just wasn’t big enough.
Oppenheimer’s film also failed to provide sufficient historical context in the beginning of the documentary by only giving minimal facts before delving into the murder stories. The Act of Killing also focuses on just a few characters, the main one being Anwar Congo. Instead of getting many stories from multiple sources in Indonesia, the “history” is just Anwar’s side of the story. Some think that the film suffers by only capturing the recollection of a couple characters, but in my opinion this small focus enhances the film and overall impact.
The Act of Killing provides a rather strange look into the forgotten massacre of about a million Indonesians during the 1960s. As discussed in the article, the director chose not to look into the historical facts about the incident, but instead chose to highlight the perpetrators with hopes they would find guilt for their actions. The director did this by convincing the former mass murderers to act in a movie about the killings. They had to reenact the killings as well, sometimes playing the victim. This sort of "play within a play" carries throughout the whole film. The fact that Oppenheimer chose to do this is ethically concerning to the millions of indonesians that lost their lives and to the gangsters who committed the crimes. I'm sure Oppenheimer didn't reveal to the military clan his true motives behind their movie. I also feel he does the lost Indonesians and their families a disservice by not mentioning more about what happened to them. Oppenheimer can be seen as almost romanticizing the event and even glorifying the former oppressors.
It is also hard to tell to what extent Oppenheimer tactics worked. The main character, Anwar Congo, is a notorious gangster within his community. After filming a scene for the movie where is put to death, he has a moment of clarity. Later, he is seen having an emotional breakdown at the very spot where he took the lives of innocent people. I feel that, for the most part, that Anwar got it. He definitely had a eureka moment and realized all the magnitude of his past actions. But what about those who fought alongside Anwar? It is hard to tell if everyone had a change of heart. I realize that the director was trying to capture a film about thought and memory. I believe that the historical content was equally as important. It was tons of ways the film could have been directed. Though very intriguing, I feel that Oppenheimer chose a route that was ethically questionable and historically inadequate.
The Act of Killing by Josh Oppenheimer is a documentary that follows Anwar Congo and his ex-mob of gangsters who used to kill for the government of Indonesia in the 1960s. One of the primary issues with the film is the lack of context given for the events portrayed. The film starts rather abruptly, following Anwar as he leads the camera crew up to an area where he used to strangle and kill people. As the film progresses, the audience is given a slight amount of information about the current affairs and politics of Indonesia, but Oppenheimer never explained any of the Cold War origins of the "communist" scare, nor did he provide information for how the military regime came to power in Indonesia. Without this context, the film just seems to be shaming Anwar's misdeeds, which while interesting, doesn't seem to be Oppenheimer's plan for the film.
I think it's important to ask whether or not this documentary needed to be made. Oppenheimer opened up pain for many people by creating this film, both on the side of victims and perpetrators of these crimes. Anwar finally discovers that his crimes were vicious and evil, and we as an audience discovered this terrible tragedy, but for hundreds of Indonesians it brought back up intense reminders of how violent their country's history has been. The fact that none of Anwar's other friends seem to be as effected by the thing's they've done only leads me to believe further that the film does more harm than good.
The Act of Killing is a documentary that focuses on a group of people in Indonesia that were a part of a death squad in the 1960s who killed somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million people. The targets of this group were “communists,” which was a name given to anyone who opposed their political party. Pemuda Pancasila, their political party arose from the death squad using the force of gangsters to get their citizens to bend and submit to their will. Oppenheimer gives very quick synopsis of the past events that have occurred in Indonesia, mainly focusing on the history of the death squad and their rise to power. With small glimpses of the government being corrupt even to this day. However, the film tends to focus more on Anwar and Adi’s group of killers and their crimes against humanity.
Oppenheimer gives a small twist to his documentary. Oppenheimer gives the killers the opportunity to reenact these killings in whatever genre they see fit. The members of the death squad choose to reenact the killings in genres that inspired them to be more violent. Anwar Congo is plagued by nightmares of his horrible atrocities he has committed against humanity. None of the other death squad members show much regret for their past, some are even proud of it like Adi Zulkadry. By the end of the film Anwar is put in the reenactment as one of the victims they torture and kill. This experience brings him to tears and sheds some light on the horrors he has committed. I think the character development in Anwar is interesting to watch. Especially when he goes to the place where they killed everyone on the rooftop patio. He shows no remorse for what he has done the first time they visit, he even gives a reenactment of how they did it, without showing any sign of regret. However, his second visit to the site, after he experiences the reenactment first hand of being strangled with the wire. Anwar becomes physically ill gagging and wanting to throw up after realizing the atrocities he committed against so many people. This can be a skeptical moment, because we see them reenacting a bunch of different scenes within the film, which makes the viewer ask themselves. Was Anwar’s final realization a serious one or just more acting for the film?
When you choose a documentary subject that has singlehandedly murdered over a thousand people, you’re going to run into some ethical issues. One of the more pressing of these, I think, is found in the filmmaker-subject relationship. The “gangsters” the film follows were more or less following orders, executing enemies of the state. You’d be hard pressed to find someone that would argue these are good men, but some of them seemed to think they were doing the right thing, at least at the time. Considering how influenced they were by American culture, it’s entirely possible the red scare and McCarthyism was a contributor to these mass killings. As the article mentions, the United States was deeply afraid of the communist presence in Indonesia, and may have even played an active role in its removal.
The point being, many of the men who committed these murders don’t necessarily view what they did as wrong. Further, they may not realize how the knowledge of it would be received overseas today. It’s a sort of manipulation on the part of Joshua Oppenheimer to string them along, likely not informing them of what his true intention with the film was. Where the gangsters (aside from perhaps Anwar) wanted to look intimidating and strong, they instead come across as evil, but weak. We don’t see the power of the death squads anymore. Instead, we see an old fat man in drag and a former gangster so haunted by his actions that he gags at the mere thought of them. It’s certainly not the picture they set out to paint. But then again, maybe that’s a little piece of justice.
The Art of Killing by Josh Oppenheimer is a documentary unlike any other film we've watched in this class. This film differs from the others by the ethics and morals in the film. The first big ethical issue deals with how Oppenheimer provides no historical context to the audience, and also how he filmed these Indonesian the ability to re-enact their horrible murders in whatever form they felt necessary. The movie follows Anwar Congo and his ex-mob gangsters who went around killing members of the communist in the government.
Looking back at the film, i believe it was great, but too long. I believe about half of the footage couldve been taken out. I also believe that the director shouldve included some historical information at the beginning for the audience. The historical information would've helped make the movie make more sense and credible. All in all, i believe this film was important to watch. I think Anwar's character change through the film was real and true. I felt the ending was also very real. Ethically, the movie was borderline wrong, but I felt that sometimes documentaries are made like this to help change the characters' heart rather than to help the audiences' minds.
The Act of Killing was a different documentary than most of the other films we have watched this semester. Although the director made the mistake of giving little to no historical background, it was interesting to get in to these killers heads. The whole time I could not believe how casually these men, in a group and individually, spoke of all of the murders they committed. They were so proud, it kind of made me sick. In class we talked a lot about the ending when Anwar finally shows remorse and become physically ill, then he walks out of a doorway on to the streets and the film ends. We talked about how Anwar had "changed." I do not think that we can say that Anwar changed as a person after that. His remorse was ONE moment that we saw. Who knows what happened in the hours or days after that.
Overall, I liked the film, mostly because it kept my attention. It was a little bit too long but it was very interesting.
The Act Of Killing by Josh Oppenheimer is a documentary detailing the massacres that took place in Indonesia during the 1960s. The film was very interesting in that it was a documentary of a film being made about the killings that took place. Oppenheimer follows Anwar Congo, a gangster, as he and his crew reenact the killings that took place in the 60s. It is an interesting spin because it caused the gangsters to reflect on the things that they did to near 1 million people and the result was unique.
At first, I didn't think that the gangsters were the least bit sorry for what they had done, one of them even claiming that he didn't feel bad because it was a war and murdering all of those people was what he was supposed to do to protect his country and win the war. It isn't until later that the gangsters' attitudes seems to begin to turn, but by the end of the movie I still wasn't fully convinced that any of the men really felt bad for what they had done. Ethically speaking, I don't think there was anything wrong with the way the Oppenheimer went about making the film. The only ethical problems that I had with the documentary were the people in it and the content matter, not anything that Oppenheimer did. It was a good film and I really enjoyed its different take in that it was essentially a film inside of a film.
The Act of Killing took place in Indonesia in the 1960s. Congo is the head leader and a gangster who reenacts scenes where communists are being massacred. It was all around a very strange film. The men spoke about how they would murder these individuals and describe in great detail the way they would go about the killings and why they needed to take place.
Towards the end of the film, Congo’s feelings about the killings had changed from feeling no remorse to actually becoming a bit sentimental about the situation. I really don’t think that the gangster’s feelings towards the massacre had changed because it was their typical way of life and they saw no problem doing this for such a long time. Anyone can change but it doesn’t happen over night.
I really enjoy The Act of Killing by Josh Oppenheimer, this was the second time that I have seen this film. Seeing it for a second time, really puts a better perspective on the film and what Oppenheimer is trying to do. You really get a better feel for what Anwar is trying to achieve and right in front of our eyes we see a transformation, or what may be as much as a transformation as he will be able to have. The Movie does a great job of keeping you focused and paying attention and keeping you intrigued with the gang members, the screaming, the fires, etc. The one flaw that Oppenheimer had was he neglected to include any historical background minus the first three sentences about the mass genocide. I feel like a historical background to some degree would have put this movie over the top, though this film already has received much lore.
The ethical decisions behind The Act of Killing are atrocious when compared to the other documentaries we have watched in class so far. Some of the central issues are documenting the reenactment of gruesome murders that took place in Indonesia in the 1960s. Besides the obvious issue of documenting these crimes, another issue is the making of the film itself. When I watched the film I couldn’t help but think to myself: Was the history behind the stories important enough to be resurrected in a cinematic form and shown to Indonesians who didn’t necessarily want to be reminded of the terrible crimes that the gangsters committed? As much as I enjoyed the film and found it very interesting, when I consider the history and people behind it, I feel like the justification for the making of it just wasn’t big enough.
ReplyDeleteOppenheimer’s film also failed to provide sufficient historical context in the beginning of the documentary by only giving minimal facts before delving into the murder stories. The Act of Killing also focuses on just a few characters, the main one being Anwar Congo. Instead of getting many stories from multiple sources in Indonesia, the “history” is just Anwar’s side of the story. Some think that the film suffers by only capturing the recollection of a couple characters, but in my opinion this small focus enhances the film and overall impact.
The Act of Killing provides a rather strange look into the forgotten massacre of about a million Indonesians during the 1960s. As discussed in the article, the director chose not to look into the historical facts about the incident, but instead chose to highlight the perpetrators with hopes they would find guilt for their actions. The director did this by convincing the former mass murderers to act in a movie about the killings. They had to reenact the killings as well, sometimes playing the victim. This sort of "play within a play" carries throughout the whole film. The fact that Oppenheimer chose to do this is ethically concerning to the millions of indonesians that lost their lives and to the gangsters who committed the crimes. I'm sure Oppenheimer didn't reveal to the military clan his true motives behind their movie. I also feel he does the lost Indonesians and their families a disservice by not mentioning more about what happened to them. Oppenheimer can be seen as almost romanticizing the event and even glorifying the former oppressors.
ReplyDeleteIt is also hard to tell to what extent Oppenheimer tactics worked. The main character, Anwar Congo, is a notorious gangster within his community. After filming a scene for the movie where is put to death, he has a moment of clarity. Later, he is seen having an emotional breakdown at the very spot where he took the lives of innocent people. I feel that, for the most part, that Anwar got it. He definitely had a eureka moment and realized all the magnitude of his past actions. But what about those who fought alongside Anwar? It is hard to tell if everyone had a change of heart. I realize that the director was trying to capture a film about thought and memory. I believe that the historical content was equally as important. It was tons of ways the film could have been directed. Though very intriguing, I feel that Oppenheimer chose a route that was ethically questionable and historically inadequate.
The Act of Killing by Josh Oppenheimer is a documentary that follows Anwar Congo and his ex-mob of gangsters who used to kill for the government of Indonesia in the 1960s. One of the primary issues with the film is the lack of context given for the events portrayed. The film starts rather abruptly, following Anwar as he leads the camera crew up to an area where he used to strangle and kill people. As the film progresses, the audience is given a slight amount of information about the current affairs and politics of Indonesia, but Oppenheimer never explained any of the Cold War origins of the "communist" scare, nor did he provide information for how the military regime came to power in Indonesia. Without this context, the film just seems to be shaming Anwar's misdeeds, which while interesting, doesn't seem to be Oppenheimer's plan for the film.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important to ask whether or not this documentary needed to be made. Oppenheimer opened up pain for many people by creating this film, both on the side of victims and perpetrators of these crimes. Anwar finally discovers that his crimes were vicious and evil, and we as an audience discovered this terrible tragedy, but for hundreds of Indonesians it brought back up intense reminders of how violent their country's history has been. The fact that none of Anwar's other friends seem to be as effected by the thing's they've done only leads me to believe further that the film does more harm than good.
The Act of Killing is a documentary that focuses on a group of people in Indonesia that were a part of a death squad in the 1960s who killed somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million people. The targets of this group were “communists,” which was a name given to anyone who opposed their political party. Pemuda Pancasila, their political party arose from the death squad using the force of gangsters to get their citizens to bend and submit to their will. Oppenheimer gives very quick synopsis of the past events that have occurred in Indonesia, mainly focusing on the history of the death squad and their rise to power. With small glimpses of the government being corrupt even to this day. However, the film tends to focus more on Anwar and Adi’s group of killers and their crimes against humanity.
ReplyDeleteOppenheimer gives a small twist to his documentary. Oppenheimer gives the killers the opportunity to reenact these killings in whatever genre they see fit. The members of the death squad choose to reenact the killings in genres that inspired them to be more violent. Anwar Congo is plagued by nightmares of his horrible atrocities he has committed against humanity. None of the other death squad members show much regret for their past, some are even proud of it like Adi Zulkadry. By the end of the film Anwar is put in the reenactment as one of the victims they torture and kill. This experience brings him to tears and sheds some light on the horrors he has committed. I think the character development in Anwar is interesting to watch. Especially when he goes to the place where they killed everyone on the rooftop patio. He shows no remorse for what he has done the first time they visit, he even gives a reenactment of how they did it, without showing any sign of regret. However, his second visit to the site, after he experiences the reenactment first hand of being strangled with the wire. Anwar becomes physically ill gagging and wanting to throw up after realizing the atrocities he committed against so many people. This can be a skeptical moment, because we see them reenacting a bunch of different scenes within the film, which makes the viewer ask themselves. Was Anwar’s final realization a serious one or just more acting for the film?
When you choose a documentary subject that has singlehandedly murdered over a thousand people, you’re going to run into some ethical issues. One of the more pressing of these, I think, is found in the filmmaker-subject relationship. The “gangsters” the film follows were more or less following orders, executing enemies of the state. You’d be hard pressed to find someone that would argue these are good men, but some of them seemed to think they were doing the right thing, at least at the time. Considering how influenced they were by American culture, it’s entirely possible the red scare and McCarthyism was a contributor to these mass killings. As the article mentions, the United States was deeply afraid of the communist presence in Indonesia, and may have even played an active role in its removal.
ReplyDeleteThe point being, many of the men who committed these murders don’t necessarily view what they did as wrong. Further, they may not realize how the knowledge of it would be received overseas today. It’s a sort of manipulation on the part of Joshua Oppenheimer to string them along, likely not informing them of what his true intention with the film was. Where the gangsters (aside from perhaps Anwar) wanted to look intimidating and strong, they instead come across as evil, but weak. We don’t see the power of the death squads anymore. Instead, we see an old fat man in drag and a former gangster so haunted by his actions that he gags at the mere thought of them. It’s certainly not the picture they set out to paint. But then again, maybe that’s a little piece of justice.
The Art of Killing by Josh Oppenheimer is a documentary unlike any other film we've watched in this class. This film differs from the others by the ethics and morals in the film. The first big ethical issue deals with how Oppenheimer provides no historical context to the audience, and also how he filmed these Indonesian the ability to re-enact their horrible murders in whatever form they felt necessary. The movie follows Anwar Congo and his ex-mob gangsters who went around killing members of the communist in the government.
ReplyDeleteLooking back at the film, i believe it was great, but too long. I believe about half of the footage couldve been taken out. I also believe that the director shouldve included some historical information at the beginning for the audience. The historical information would've helped make the movie make more sense and credible. All in all, i believe this film was important to watch. I think Anwar's character change through the film was real and true. I felt the ending was also very real. Ethically, the movie was borderline wrong, but I felt that sometimes documentaries are made like this to help change the characters' heart rather than to help the audiences' minds.
The Act of Killing was a different documentary than most of the other films we have watched this semester. Although the director made the mistake of giving little to no historical background, it was interesting to get in to these killers heads. The whole time I could not believe how casually these men, in a group and individually, spoke of all of the murders they committed. They were so proud, it kind of made me sick. In class we talked a lot about the ending when Anwar finally shows remorse and become physically ill, then he walks out of a doorway on to the streets and the film ends. We talked about how Anwar had "changed." I do not think that we can say that Anwar changed as a person after that. His remorse was ONE moment that we saw. Who knows what happened in the hours or days after that.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I liked the film, mostly because it kept my attention. It was a little bit too long but it was very interesting.
The Act Of Killing by Josh Oppenheimer is a documentary detailing the massacres that took place in Indonesia during the 1960s. The film was very interesting in that it was a documentary of a film being made about the killings that took place. Oppenheimer follows Anwar Congo, a gangster, as he and his crew reenact the killings that took place in the 60s. It is an interesting spin because it caused the gangsters to reflect on the things that they did to near 1 million people and the result was unique.
ReplyDeleteAt first, I didn't think that the gangsters were the least bit sorry for what they had done, one of them even claiming that he didn't feel bad because it was a war and murdering all of those people was what he was supposed to do to protect his country and win the war. It isn't until later that the gangsters' attitudes seems to begin to turn, but by the end of the movie I still wasn't fully convinced that any of the men really felt bad for what they had done. Ethically speaking, I don't think there was anything wrong with the way the Oppenheimer went about making the film. The only ethical problems that I had with the documentary were the people in it and the content matter, not anything that Oppenheimer did. It was a good film and I really enjoyed its different take in that it was essentially a film inside of a film.
The Act of Killing took place in Indonesia in the 1960s. Congo is the head leader and a gangster who reenacts scenes where communists are being massacred. It was all around a very strange film. The men spoke about how they would murder these individuals and describe in great detail the way they would go about the killings and why they needed to take place.
ReplyDeleteTowards the end of the film, Congo’s feelings about the killings had changed from feeling no remorse to actually becoming a bit sentimental about the situation. I really don’t think that the gangster’s feelings towards the massacre had changed because it was their typical way of life and they saw no problem doing this for such a long time. Anyone can change but it doesn’t happen over night.
I really enjoy The Act of Killing by Josh Oppenheimer, this was the second time that I have seen this film. Seeing it for a second time, really puts a better perspective on the film and what Oppenheimer is trying to do. You really get a better feel for what Anwar is trying to achieve and right in front of our eyes we see a transformation, or what may be as much as a transformation as he will be able to have.
ReplyDeleteThe Movie does a great job of keeping you focused and paying attention and keeping you intrigued with the gang members, the screaming, the fires, etc.
The one flaw that Oppenheimer had was he neglected to include any historical background minus the first three sentences about the mass genocide. I feel like a historical background to some degree would have put this movie over the top, though this film already has received much lore.