By Chlotrudis Independent Film Society
Rating: 5 cats
Director: Joshua Oppenheimer
Country: denmark, finland, indonesia, norway, united_kingdom
Year: 2015
Running time: 103
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3521134/combined
Chris says: “THE ACT OF KILLING is a tough act to follow, let alone surpass, but director Joshua Oppenheimer does just that with THE LOOK OF SILENCE. Billed as a sequel, it’s actually more of a companion piece: whereas the first film profiled surviving death squad leaders of Indonesia’s 1965 genocide of over two million Communist citizens by the military-controlled government, the second examines that massacre from the point of view of the victims’ families.
“In the earlier film, Oppenheimer not only interviewed the killers but encouraged them to re-create the various ways in which they committed the acts as if they were scenes in a Hollywood movie. The results were not only jaw dropping and absurd; they also illustrated how disturbingly wide the chasm between action and perception remained for the killers, none of whom were willingly remorseful for their deeds. THE LOOK OF SILENCE does not boast as attention getting or entertainingly surreal a stylistic hook, but it’s soon apparent that it doesn’t really need one. Instead of profiling multiple subjects affected by the killings, Oppenheimer limits his focus to one: Adi Rukun, whose older brother was one of the genocide’s casualties. Born a few years after his brother’s death, he doesn’t have first-hand experience or memories of the killings, but we see their lingering, traumatic influence on his family, particularly his ancient, senile father and aged (but still mostly lucid) mother—even decades later, they’re still shattered by the loss of their son. Throughout the film, they each sing hymns to him, sometimes consciously, occasionally not.
“In one sense, the title refers to numerous scenes where we view Rukun quietly, pensively watching footage Oppenheimer shot of the men who murdered his brother (who shamelessly describe the killing in brutally graphic detail). In another, the title is a play on Rukun’s profession as an ophthalmologist, which he uses as an ‘in’, gaining access to the killers in the guise of an eye exam. In a culture where the killings aren’t talked about because the killers still hold political power, Rukun’s interviews are astonishing for his bravery and even-handed composure. Once each eye-exam is finished, he almost seamlessly finesses the conversation to shift towards the hot-button topic of the genocide and his personal relation to it. As with the earlier film, not a single killer Rukun talks to is apologetic, and most rapidly become irritated with him (many even mechanically reciting decades-old propaganda about how the communists ‘took multiple wives’ and such). However, there is one exception regarding a killer’s daughter: the conversation between her and Rukun is as riveting as the final scene in THE ACT OF KILLING, even suggesting a teeny tiny measure of hope for Indonesia’s future generations.
“As with the earlier film, there is some speculation that, as an act of journalism, THE LOOK OF SILENCE is slanted and subjective with Oppenheimer staging its interviews. Perhaps that’s not an entirely made-up claim, but it’s ultimately dwarfed by the film’s two major achievements: not only does the filmmaker continue to reveal just how disparate both reality and society are for Indonesian citizens on either side of the conflict, he also enables Rukun to initiate a necessary dialogue. The enduring tragedy of the genocide is that, even nearly a half-century later, such a dialogue can only extend so far. This conflict makes for a powerful, cathartic watch—maybe even more so than THE ACT OF KILLING because there are no flashy distractions. In hopes to reveal more about its participants, the earlier film puts up smokescreens, while this one makes an emphatic effort to eradicate any mirage. 5 cats
“(THE LOOK OF SILENCE screened at the 2014 Toronto International Film Festival.)”
Jason says: “Joshua Oppenheimer’s THE ACT OF KILLING is one of the most stunning documentaries to see wide release (by the less extravagant standards of non-fiction films) in recent years, presenting the sort of true-life horror we are naturally inclined to look away from in a manner so unorthodox and daring as to make averting one’s gaze difficult. Though few who saw it will say that the medium overpowered the message, it is still nice to see Oppenheimer make that film’s complement, a laser-focused examination of the same people and events from the other perspective that feels no less original for disposing of the previous film’s unusual methodology.
“This one focuses on Adi, an optometrist in his forties whom we initially see watching THE ACT OF KILLING on television. He does so quietly, occasionally turning his attention to his children. Elsewhere, an old woman washes her ancient husband. They are his parents and they had another child, Ramli, who was killed during the purges of ‘communists’ (in reality, anybody who spoke up about the Indonesian government) in the 1960s. Inspired, Adi visits some of the people who remain from that time, fitting them for eyeglasses and trying to learn just what happened to this brother murdered before he was born.
“If THE LOOK OF SILENCE is one’s first encounter with stories of the Indonesian death squads, it is certainly informative and interesting. As much as the film is about Adi’s search for answers and learning more about the unsavory parts of his country’s history, it is perhaps most interesting for observing how decades of the silence that gives the film its title has manifested itself, burying this part of history even while the people involved remain prominent. There’s weird self-censorship and some terribly tortured doublespeak in Adi’s son’s history class.
“It is as a companion piece to THE ACT OF KILLING that this movie really shines, though, in large part because Oppenheimer, Adi, and the crew (many of whom choose to remain anonymous) seem to invert a great deal of what made that movie memorable. There’s a directness and focus here, with Adi seeking information about just one victim by asking straightforward questions in a level voice. Oppenheimer never tries to get far outside the victims’ perspective, and never allows things to be fanciful in the same way the previous film was. The emotion on display is not confrontations, but the weight of having lived with something for generations.
“And yet, the two movies are not as far apart as they may seem. Even while telling a more straightforward story, Oppenheimer still creates a feeling of unusual, unflinching rock-steadiness, holding shots long enough to get beyond uncomfortable to a place where the audience starts to think about whether the enfeebled nature of Adi’s father is a sign of the unfairness of the world (in comparison to how comfortable the war criminals who took his son are) or an escape to be grateful for. There are the same sort of striking images and contrary moments, and in many cases the same end result – details being plainly related – is what will stay with the audience.
“The two films are close enough that I imagine watching them back-to-back might be too much, but that’s fine. Both films are exceptional enough to stick in one’s mind for years afterwards, and watching one will only make the other more interesting. 5 cats
“Seen 26 April 2015 in The Brattle Theatre (Independent Film Festival Boston 2015, DCP)”