Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:38 am
Award winning documentary about the men who did the killing during Indonesia's slaughter of communists in 1965-1966.
(NOTE: I watched the 2 1/2 hour director's cut.)
I went into the film completely blind. I knew little about the event covered in the film, and had no clue what to expect in terms of the "slant" of the film. If you want to do the same, stop reading now and go watch the film. I'm sure the standard length theatrical version is fine to watch.
Before I talk about the film itself, I want to talk about the prism that's it's shot through.
This film is about as unbiased as a typical Michael Moore documentary or MSNBC news report. The director, Joshua Oppenheimer, is clearly very, very left wing. At no point is communism's history or trail of bodies ever brought up. In fact, communism and the communists are never painted in a bad light throughout the film. The film is very one sided. At no point does the film discuss the failed coup that was the catalyst for the event or even suggest communist links to it. That part is interesting considering the film deals with the repercussions, which are carried out on communists. The film mentions "western" aid in the slaughter and Mr. Oppenheimer has publicly demanded that the U.S. and the U.K. accept responsibility, yet no proof whatsoever is offered within the film aside from an implication that American movies inspired some of the killers. Also, if I remember correctly the film mentions or implies the number of victims to be above 1 million, yet the wikipage says 500k. Either way, it's a lot of victims, but artificially inflating the number does hint at bias.
One other thing that left me curious is that Mr. Oppenheimer interfered verbally in a few scenes. I totally understand asking questions, but there were a few times he stated his opinion to the people he's filming. Isn't that a big documentary "no no"?
That being said, Mr. Oppenheimer made a good film. Watching these men who committed atrocities explain why and how they did what they did was fascinating. Both in how matter of fact they state it, what their opinions were of what they were doing, and what their opinions are now.
What's really clever, and probably pretty biased, is that he tells these men to make movies about their experiences. I say biased because discussions of American films and their influence run throughout the film. Thus asking these guys to make movies about their crimes could easily be seen as manipulative to help viewers make the connection between these crimes and the U.S.
Again, at no point in the film is it ever discussed that the U.S. offered aid, weapons, troops, consultations, etc. I think Mr. Oppenheimer is condemning them because Indonesia was an ally, and the U.S. (and others) were turning a blind eye to the slaughter going on there.
Anyway, watching these guys film these scenes is the best part of the movie. The way each reacts to the violence involved is interesting. There's one scene involving a guy whose father was a murdered Communist and that guy, imho, steals the movie. Before the scene he was discussing his father's death with these killers, and they were clearly turned off by him. Then they cut to doing the scene, and Oppenheimer very wisely allows it to play out so you're not sure if this is a scene or the real deal. That's how good a job the actor does in portraying a victim. I honestly thought he was begging for his life for real.
One negative of the film is how much time Oppenheimer spends on showing the life of those in power, and how corrupt the country is and its officials. It made it seem like I was watching two different movies. And don't get me wrong, that stuff was fascinating too, and I'd watch a documentary just on that right now. It's especially compelling because of how it doesn't seem too far off from our own issues here. However, it felt out of place in a film about mass murderers and how they live and cope with what they've done. That's interesting enough! I don't need to hear about how one of them can't get elected because he doesn't have the money to bribe the voters because the system is so corrupted.
Perhaps I made a mistake watching the director's cut? Maybe it includes too much of Oppenheimer's personal beliefs and slant? Probably. Still, I don't regret it. Despite Oppenheimer's politics, he does a great job of capturing the killers' stories and that's what I was there for. Some know they are monsters, some are too stupid to know, some too evil (the s.o.b. who talks about raping 14 year olds), some come to the realization during filming.
It's a biased, but good film that deals with a heavy topic.
(NOTE: I watched the 2 1/2 hour director's cut.)
I went into the film completely blind. I knew little about the event covered in the film, and had no clue what to expect in terms of the "slant" of the film. If you want to do the same, stop reading now and go watch the film. I'm sure the standard length theatrical version is fine to watch.
Before I talk about the film itself, I want to talk about the prism that's it's shot through.
This film is about as unbiased as a typical Michael Moore documentary or MSNBC news report. The director, Joshua Oppenheimer, is clearly very, very left wing. At no point is communism's history or trail of bodies ever brought up. In fact, communism and the communists are never painted in a bad light throughout the film. The film is very one sided. At no point does the film discuss the failed coup that was the catalyst for the event or even suggest communist links to it. That part is interesting considering the film deals with the repercussions, which are carried out on communists. The film mentions "western" aid in the slaughter and Mr. Oppenheimer has publicly demanded that the U.S. and the U.K. accept responsibility, yet no proof whatsoever is offered within the film aside from an implication that American movies inspired some of the killers. Also, if I remember correctly the film mentions or implies the number of victims to be above 1 million, yet the wikipage says 500k. Either way, it's a lot of victims, but artificially inflating the number does hint at bias.
One other thing that left me curious is that Mr. Oppenheimer interfered verbally in a few scenes. I totally understand asking questions, but there were a few times he stated his opinion to the people he's filming. Isn't that a big documentary "no no"?
That being said, Mr. Oppenheimer made a good film. Watching these men who committed atrocities explain why and how they did what they did was fascinating. Both in how matter of fact they state it, what their opinions were of what they were doing, and what their opinions are now.
What's really clever, and probably pretty biased, is that he tells these men to make movies about their experiences. I say biased because discussions of American films and their influence run throughout the film. Thus asking these guys to make movies about their crimes could easily be seen as manipulative to help viewers make the connection between these crimes and the U.S.
Again, at no point in the film is it ever discussed that the U.S. offered aid, weapons, troops, consultations, etc. I think Mr. Oppenheimer is condemning them because Indonesia was an ally, and the U.S. (and others) were turning a blind eye to the slaughter going on there.
Anyway, watching these guys film these scenes is the best part of the movie. The way each reacts to the violence involved is interesting. There's one scene involving a guy whose father was a murdered Communist and that guy, imho, steals the movie. Before the scene he was discussing his father's death with these killers, and they were clearly turned off by him. Then they cut to doing the scene, and Oppenheimer very wisely allows it to play out so you're not sure if this is a scene or the real deal. That's how good a job the actor does in portraying a victim. I honestly thought he was begging for his life for real.
One negative of the film is how much time Oppenheimer spends on showing the life of those in power, and how corrupt the country is and its officials. It made it seem like I was watching two different movies. And don't get me wrong, that stuff was fascinating too, and I'd watch a documentary just on that right now. It's especially compelling because of how it doesn't seem too far off from our own issues here. However, it felt out of place in a film about mass murderers and how they live and cope with what they've done. That's interesting enough! I don't need to hear about how one of them can't get elected because he doesn't have the money to bribe the voters because the system is so corrupted.
Perhaps I made a mistake watching the director's cut? Maybe it includes too much of Oppenheimer's personal beliefs and slant? Probably. Still, I don't regret it. Despite Oppenheimer's politics, he does a great job of capturing the killers' stories and that's what I was there for. Some know they are monsters, some are too stupid to know, some too evil (the s.o.b. who talks about raping 14 year olds), some come to the realization during filming.
It's a biased, but good film that deals with a heavy topic.