The Act of Killing (2012, dir. Joshua Oppenheimer)

    I wanted to see this film after hearing much appraisal from critics. Also, I noticed Werner Herzog's name attached to it. I found Herzog's documentary work to be while perhaps very smoothly crafted (an arguably bad thing for a documentary to be), very convincing as cinema. It follows the former death squad leaders who carried out mass killings in Indonesia in 1965-6 as they recreate them in a film of their own making, imitating various Hollywood genres. Through impunity, they are never brought to justice for their killings and are even idolised in some instances.

I wanted to say that the film was shocking without being sensational, but I consider the very method of the film-making, in its manipulation of the narrative, to be sensational. This film is rather more an exploration than a meditation. A film that is meditative has less cause to be sensational, and is often a lot less straight forward in its narrative, appearing static. An exploration takes you on a more linear journey which at first would seem crude in the context of the genre. Yet, like Herzog did with “Grizzly Man”, the film is about truths and not facts. The film isn't strictly about the historical killings that lurk in the background, but their psychological fallout for the perpetrators in an society that applauds them rather than condemns them. It takes the viewer on a journey through the making of the killers' film, there is a deliberate movement with a deliberate ending.

But this style of documentary making is effective as a cinematic force, it was “Grizzly Man” that convinced me of this. It brings to mind the question of bias in documentary, though. The film does feel more heavily manipulated to make a straight-forward narrative, which gives the film its shock (and therefore sensation) value. I don't see this as a weakness on the film-maker's part, more so a strength in their ability to create a powerful reflection of the human condition. This bias is different from the Michael Moore type, which is concerned with facts instead of truths and is therefore mere pamphleteering. This legitimises Oppenheimer as a story-teller, whilst also a documentary maker.

There is a theme of remembered histories. How the past is remembered to both the public and individuals. The kitsch, hollow quality of the film they make highlights the falseness of glamorised histories. When they re-enact the killings, they incorporate the glamour of Hollywood film as a form of suppressing their realism. The film they make is a projection of both Anwar (the main character and former death squad leader) and the state's misremembered history and their idolisation of the gangster. Yet, in the end, the misremembered histories are inhuman myths. Anwar's nightmares (of the killings) show his human side, which he suppreses with drugs, alcohol and this myth. There is also an interesting historical and mental feedback in the physical re-enactments by the death squad leaders and then also their own watching back of their scenes.

At the end we are led to believe he finally confronts his killings as a human, his physical retching at the memories being a purely human expression. This is why the ending is bittersweet and, as a result of this, haunting. There is positive resolution in his reconciliation with his past, the humanity of it, yet also the inescapable horror of the past through our own humanity. And we, the viewers are in his position. The horror is safely behind the screen as they make the movie, free for us to gawk at but wholly safe in its distance, the thoughts that we could never be like them. Yet, at the end, that screen is pulled away and what we are left with is a pure human reflection, something uncanny and relatable. We, as humans, are witnessing a human suffering with his past.

If it wasn't a documentary, The Act of Killing would be psychological horror, similar to Polanski's 'Repulsion' in both its humanity and the visual projections of the imagination. Some film-makers would try and make it about redemption which would compromise the horror element. For what it is, though, the film needs to be horrific to retain is effectiveness. Some might call this, as it is a documentary, biased and too vague in its facts and realism. Yet the truths behind the facts, the humanity behind the concrete, is what Oppenheimer is truly capturing.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD5oMxbMcHM

"Grizzly Man" film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8MjDyfcMmU