De Oost

A hard to rate movie.

I have to rely on stories my granddad told me serviing in theDutch Indies during that time. I have digged into the history, but i have to admit: Dutch eduction failed in the time I went to school about this subject.

The movie started with a coming home trip of the soldiers. I doubt that scene was close to history accuracy. Didnt fit the period of time. Looked more like the 80's or the 2020's the way people acted. But ok, I see why the scene was added.

The first part of the storyline was actually pretty good. I did vividly see my granddad up there. The boys getting klapper for the soldiers (klapper = coconut in the Indies). And yes the soldiers were just walking around to "protect Dutch property". Please notice the quote marks. In the second half the story goes beserk. I doubt there was a team doing the things shown in the movie. This said, I have no doubts whatsoever, the Dutch stepped way across the line of what we call , hmmzz good. Lots of innocent civilians were simply murdered.

But it was clearly were the director gots his inspiration of: not history books (well, there arent many history books describing these dark pages of Dutch history), but movies like Platoon, Rambo, Deerhunter, Once upon in America (yes, too clear to not notice) and series like Tour of Duty.

But I still gave this movie a 7. Why? Well it is good someone tried to make a movie of this part of history. Besides that, the acting was overall pretty good and the camera work was above Dutch quality. The storyline, being historical accurate or not, was also good, and by being not chronological (did I already mention you can compare it to Once upon a time in America) it got even better.

Also the thin line between good and bad was a good thing. The director, despite of his background didnt pick really picked sides and gave the viewer enough space to make his or hers own opinion.

So I was surprised of the end result and I have to say, this might be one of the best Dutch movies I have ever seen, with actors not that well known in the Netherlands.

Story from the colonial territory of dutch indonesia post-ww2, and the ''ethnical'' cleansing of terror cells threatening queen Wilhelminas land and people.

Its a utterly shaking story about a desperate dutch soldier ,who due to his fathers collaboration with the nazis, makes living in holland inhumanely impossible, and with no possible opportunities to get a job or make a living due to traitor blood running through his veins. So he joins the dutch forces of the far east, an edition of an army like the french legionaires, where you are noody and nobody cares what youve done to flee from home.

Its a jungle war movie, its pretty graphic and shocking, and the final scene i didnt see coming. Acting are among the superior that you may find in the pay bass, reminds me of some of the norwegian resistance war movies made in the 2 millenium. Its is slow in periods and splashes the surface , but takes some abrupt deep dives into the matter now and then. There are lots of blood and temporal fragmental eruptions due to summary executions en masse.

Productionwise, it shows that the helmsmen do have experience in the silverscreen craftmanship, the locations are shot in a more palmatic environment than holland can offer. So its not a low budget flick you are in for. Good camera lead, very realistic special effects, and as mentioned a great cast.

On the nether end is the lack of a good timeline, cause there are flashback that makes a grumpy old man confused about where and when. Its also drawn abit long on playtime, but summasummarum, you will be taught and you will be entertained, and you will feel, especially if pure blood dutch, the urge to make some revisions to your own domestic and extraterritorial history curicullum, and it may give some peace on mind to all colonial immigrants of the dutch empire, and may explain some social issues connected to terrorist attakcs done on dutch homeground especially in the 1970's.

A good movie, and ill beg for more revelating movies in the future. Dutch and belgian war movies do get good marks in my movie inventory. A recommend.

In the Netherlands the movie The East was met with a lot of controversy before it was released on Amazon Prime. The story is about Indonesia's claim for independence from the Netherlands straight after World War 2, when the country was still called the Dutch East Indies. It follows a young Dutch soldier who travels with the army to the East to restore order and to stop the rebellion. Later in the film he discovers that "this was not what he signed for".

This historical event in itself of course was controversial. The Dutch have done terrible things in Indonesia during this time (in the film led by Raymond Westerling aka The Turk), but the rebels, the Indonesian Nationalists, were even more cruel. In fact, my (Indonesian) mother (who was a teenager on Java at the time) told me that the rebels were even more feared than the Dutch. The Nationalists did terrible things to their own people to the point that she and her family were even moved to special camps where former Japanese soldiers (!) protected them.

The first trailer of The East immediately raised a lot of questions.

How would the movie portray the Dutch KNIL soldiers? Were they the bad guys and the rebels the good guys? Would the film even mention that the KNIL-soldiers - like the American Vietnam veterans - were victims too? Would the Rebels be shown as heroes or as foes? And what about the controversial Raymond Westerling? Would he be shown as a hero or a cruel mad man?

Okay, let's first concentrate on The East as a fictional movie.

Man, the film really is the Dutch "Platoon". The East looks stunning (for Dutch standards) and can compete with any American big budget production. The performances are very good too. The way our protagonist, Johan de Vries, not only struggles with the way his mission is developing but also with the things from his past is well done. Intertwined with the scenes in Indonesia are flash forwards from Johan's life back in the Netherlands, struggling to pick up his old life and in the end completely losing it.

At first Johan feels bored by the lack of action in Indonesia. One day he meets the strong captain Westerling and things change. Westerling becomes his hero and he doesn't hesitate to join his Special Troops Corps to destroy the rebellion. But when they travel to South Sulawesi Johan is shocked by Westerling's methods and wants to get out. This results in an unrealistic, but exciting finale.

One of the controversies of The East was about the look of Westerling (the real one didn't have a "Hitler" moustache) and the almost Nazi look of the uniforms of his Special Troops Corps. Comparing the Dutch to Nazis is almost sacrilege, because the (Jewish) people suffered a lot during their regime during WW2. But in this case I understand the filmmaker's decision to do so. Westerling does have a moustache, but to say that it resembles Hitler's that's a far stretch. I think it was done to show the audience that this character is based on a true historical figure, but it doesn't follow his true life. In fact, the ultimate fate of Westerling in this film can't be further from the truth and is completely fictional.

And about the "Nazi" uniforms: well, I don't see them as particular Nazi clothing. They are much darker than the normal ones (which makes no sense in the heat) but I think they were there to show that this was a particular group and to protect the "normal" KNIL soldiers. Most KNIL soldiers were normal boys who had nothing to do with the atrocities that were done. And even the ones that have done bad things: you can understand that it was hard to say no to a charismatic leader like Westerling. Especially under those circumstances it's difficult to distinguish wrong from right.

The fear that the Nationalists would be shown as heroes or victims is also not grounded. There's one scene in the movie that shows their incredible cruelty and that works very well. No, the rebels are not shown as good people. Maybe their cruelty should have been more prominent in the film (like the Dutch ones) but as a filmmaker you have to make choices. In the end it's the story about an innocent and idealistic boy who goes to a (possibly unjust) war and about the impact it has in his remaining life.

Although I am no expert on this era of history I think I can say that The East is an incredible movie. It totally delivers as a fictional film that was made for entertainment. It has great storytelling although I must say that the end was a little bit too much.

From a historical point of view I'm happy that a lot of important things were mentioned. You can understand why former KNIL soldiers had a hard time to even talk about their experiences in Indonesia. The Dutch have done bad things, but the Nationalists were just as bad or even worse. Westerling has done good things, but the methods he used when he was commanding his Special Troops Corps were just plain wrong. In that way he's much like Kurtz in Apocalypse Now: he thinks he's right and maybe started out as a good guy, but in the end he lost his way.

Historically a lot of things may not be correct in The East. But maybe the film will cause a healthy discussion on this subject, or at least way more understanding for the KNIL soldiers who went to the East to fight for their land because they believed in what they were fighting for.

I just hope that viewers realize that The East is a movie and not a documentary. Even the makers don't claim that they show the whole truth, but I think it's a great attempt to do so.

8/10.

In my opinion this movie missed an opportunity to teach the average viewer about a part of Dutch history which unfortunately is not very well known (and still is debated). The movie is well made, but it left me a bit disappointed. I am of Indonesian decent and was very much excited to see the movie because I'd love to see this topic getting more attention. But it is really a fictional story loosely based on factual characters and events. The central weight of the story lies with the conflicted protagonist and his relation to the antagonist which is only set to a backdrop of Indonesia and their fight for independence. It lightly touches some of the context and background but it has no weight in the movie. It may have caused some viewers to believe that this movie only wishes to show the Dutch were there blatantly killing innocent villagers. Although the Indonesians are almost portrait as Vietcong (yet you won't see any of them shooting even one bullet though). In fact, because the movie only shows violence coming from the Dutch the movie feels very unbalanced if you are knowledgeable about the actual history. I know this movie is not meant to be a documentary but as they have done a good job with visual accuracy I perhaps expected a Schindler's list kind of gripping movie in terms of accuracy.

Most reviews are exemplary for society today: people choosing position at extreme ends based on the subject with no space for nuance or really talking about the actual matter at hand. Very high marks, or very low. Yes, it's an important subject, but the movie isn't good or bad because the subject is important.

The visuals are good and above par for Dutch movies. The narrative transcends Dutch standards of treating it's educated audience like children with baroque and derivative clichés in storytelling (i.e. Lobotomized Love Actually clones etc.). It's just that the movie is too long, or perhaps should have been longer but not as a movie but as a series, which would have allowed for different dynamics to have been explored more in depth. There are a lot of interesting things there to dig into, but due to the film format and limited time that means it can a little too feel superficial. That sense of superficiality to certain elements (or rather the desire to dig deeper) combined with the long length feel at odds with each other. The movie also seems not to be able to make up it's mind to be either a social commentary or war movie, which gives a sense of falling just shy of the mark in both categories. Still a valiant effort with strong casting, acting, directing and art direction and in any case important to raise a difficult subject of relatively recent history. Other than most reviews, the film can be commended for choosing nuance and showing there can be well intended albeit misguided reasoning (rooting out perceived evil) behind atrocious acts, and by doing so manages to steer clear of cheap morality.