O Peso do Silêncio

The Look of Silence. The follow up to Joshua Oppenheimer's incredible The Act of Killing, which focused on the unrepentant perpetrators of the under-reported (thanks to western support) 1965 Indonesian 'Communist' genocide. TLOS not as shocking as its predecessor (one watch was enough) but still eye opening and disturbing. TLOS focuses on the brother of one of the murdered who meets the perpetrators to seek solace and for them to express regret. A must see double bill - but the antithesis of popcorn fodder so not for a cosy date! 8 out of ten (The Act of Killing got 9)

The Look of Silence is such a brilliant title for this movie. For one, it's a good description of Adi's reaction when hearing about the murder of his brother. (And it's oddly fitting that he is an optometrist). It's also a description of the response they get from the perpetrators, refusing to show any guilt or remorse, preferring to pretend that it never happened. And that seems to be what Oppenheimer is tapping into in Indonesia, the look of silence, and what really lies behind it.

This is definitely a companion piece to the previous "Act of Killing". Not because it does not stand on its own, which it does, but because they stand so much stronger together. Each documentary has an unique perspective on some mutual themes. Especially guilt and remorse.

It's amazing how it all comes together in a movie like this. Oppenheimer must have done a lot of work for this. Adi is such a good subject for a documentary like this, and having him being willing to explore this dark side of his nation's history, and openly talk to the people who brutally murdered his brother - it's such an unique way to explore all of this. And Adi does a really good job with it all.

"We'd drag them. Some of them screamed. 'Please, sir! Have mercy!' But we don't care. In fact, we beat him again to shut him up.". Two former death camp leaders proudly re-create the grisly scenes of the '65 purge of supposed "communists" under the instigation of the armed forces, which became widely known as the Indonesian Genocide. Documentarian Oppenheimer asks them an explicit question. "from here, can the prisoners see the blood?". "Yes, because the place was lit by torches.", they enthusiastically reply. "Because others went first. So he's given up hope. 'I'm about to die', he's thinking. 'I'd better accept it'", they describe the apparent thoughts of their victims before decapitating, mutilating and kicking their bodies into Snake River. "Feel free to take a photo!", passing a digital camera to Oppenheimer. They joyously pose atop the butchered souls of thousands, their blood stains infused with the earth they stand on. One of the killers hoists two fingers in the air, offering a peace sign, before proceeding with a thumbs up gesture.

Oppenheimer utilised this blood-curdling footage years later, by showing its profound horror to a middle-aged Indonesian man whose brother was an unfortunate victim of the national purge. Acknowledging the explicit nature of his country's past and yearning to learn more, he singlehandedly confronts the perpetrators who executed the killings with Oppenheimer documenting the anxiety-inducing conversations, under the pretence of an eye examination. Through the changing of lenses, this metaphorical dissimulation magnifies the retinas of "Adi's" brother's executors, allowing windows into their darkened souls to widen.

Predictably, much like with Oppenheimer's creatively profound companion piece 'The Act of Killing', these individuals expressed minimal remorse. Proud to serve their nation and glorify their political ideologies. However, the purpose of these bleak confrontations was not to agitate those that committed such atrocities, but to perpetuate a historic generational divide within Indonesia. The current generation educated with false truths to adhere to the current sociopolitical climate. "Communists gouged the eyes out of army generals", students are taught. Yet the truth couldn't be any further from that manipulative fabrication. Everyone seemingly forced into silence regarding the questioning of their own national history. Therefore, producing such an unflinching documentary that dares to question the morality and legitimacy behind one of the worst genocides in recent history, is of paramount importance. Not just to Indonesia, but every nation that endures tainted democracy. Inciting societies to educate themselves and not ignore the grave actions of their previous generation.

Oppenheimer challenges the boundaries of documentary filmmaking once again, crafting uncompromising perceptive enlightenment through one man. A man whom represented the nullified silence of those feared by their own government. A man whom fearlessly questioned the very individuals that shaped his current standard of living. Representing the suffering and fragility of an oppressed society. Understatedly profound, yet consistently unshakeable in nature. The inclusion of iridescent quietude, from expansive shots of village life to close-ups of metamorphosis, overemphasising the extinguished freedom of speech. Many of the confrontations delivering unwavering tyrannical sensibilities likening their ideologies to totalitarian repression, exhibiting minimal sorrow for the thousands they slaughtered. Conversations that rightly bury the words under the skin to those listening. Ranging from indirect threats such as "be careful, what you're doing may be deemed as communist behaviour" to Western influences including "America taught us how to hate communists". Undoubtedly disconcerting.

Reservations for the confrontation with "Adi's" uncle, whom was guarding "communists" before they were massacred, is the sole criticism this documentary obtains. Staged, exploitative and unnecessarily producing familial drama in a nation that is already fragmented and traumatised. Consequently Oppenheimer overstepped the line in that particular instance, despite "Adi's" insistence, creating an artificially uncomfortable atmosphere for the sake of drama.

However, whilst not creatively innovative as his former insight into the Indonesian Genocide, Oppenheimer's The Look of Silence unequivocally nullifies all emotive output, perhaps more so that his previous directorial efforts. It is unflinching. It is uncompromising. It is of paramount significance. We need boundary-testing documentaries like this to truly provide insight and to evoke human right activism. To microscopically magnify the actions of humanity's past and ensure they never happen again. "That's politics. Politics is the process of achieving your ideals", the former commander of civilian militia joyously states with a grimace. "In many ways...".

A fantastic companion piece to The Act of Killing, one of the most deeply disturbing films I've ever seen. But it's not fair to call it a continuation of that film, and what this is revolved around is inherently interesting and riveting in itself. "I knew nothing about it"... the whole film can be summarized in those few words. the film is infuriating in some of the same ways The Act of Killing was, but less so by the mere fact that it's less concentrated on the individuals who committed those acts. And because it concentrates on the family of a victim, it's heartfelt in a way it's sibling film wasn't. Fantastic, thought-provoking, discomforting in the ideas and questions that it touches upon.

Act of Killing I bought with some trepidation and settled down on my own to watch it (and watched again immediately after with the Josh/Werner Herzog background discussion - rather the film background to the discussion). Next day I bought Look of Silence. Watched it next night both without and with the background discussion. I was mesmerised (and still am), and so many questions come to mind.

The two films work well together, Act of Killing being more overview and focusing on the killers and the political structure/mob rule that is still in power. Act of Killing doesn't particularly explore how they got away with genocide (why the world turned a blind eye), but this is alluded to carefully and specifically in Look of Silence.

I could write so much because the two films together have provoked in me a profound perspective on human horror, which has gripped me most recently with what we see on the news with ISIS (Paris Masacre).

What are human beings capable of, and why is an individual able to make such choices? What are the structures that facilitate the most grotesque of human acts of wickedness upon one another. Do we all contain wickedness, does a killer lurk inside us all? Does fear itself propel the killers - kill or be killed? Are we (cells in the human organism) enacting our worst imaginable terror, excising evil, I kill therefore I am?

Josh Oppenheimer, I applaud your work. The sensitivity and attention to the finest detail employed in your work is, for me, beyond words. The cinematography, colours you choose, balance in composition. Even the subtitles were easy to read. Beautiful lingering pauses. You said of one still scene, a bridge, pale green, a river bank; you have no words to describe how this scene makes you feel, what the scene says. For me this scene (in LoS) is terrifyingly beautiful, sad, the weight of recent history hanging there in the stillness. Embodying the sadness and fear. I love that still scene.

Superb, I do not have the words to describe what your films say to me... I will think about them for a long long time, and watch them again.