Ignorance truly is bliss. Before watching Joshua Oppenheimer’s harrowing 2012 documentary The Act of Killing, I had no knowledge of the 1965-1966 genocide in Indonesia, which was initially intended on purging “communists” from Indonesian society, but resulted in a million innocent people being massacred. That I could have no awareness of the subject could be blamed on western ignorance – upon receiving the BAFTA for best documentary, Oppenheimer claimed that the UK and US were partly responsible for these atrocities to happen due to their insistence on destroying communism at any cost (a statement that was naturally cut out of the TV broadcast).
This is one of the most vital and important chapters of 20th century history, one that I never saw in a history textbook at school likely due to an undercurrent of national shame that Britain played a part in these atrocities simply by condoning them.
More Human Than Its Predecessor, But No Less Harrowing
By re-enacting the killings from the killers’ perspective, The Act of Killing proved to be a remarkable documentary, but a hard one to invest in due to Oppenheimer’s refusal to be critical of the elderly killers’ actions. The Look of Silence tells the story of the genocide, in particular the “Snake River” purge, from the perspective of the brother of one of the victims. If The Act of Killing left me cold due to its focus on people ambivalent to their crimes, The Look of Silence had me completely captivated. It was a human story, and was therefore more harrowing and at times more difficult to watch than its predecessor.
I wish I was still ignorant of this chapter of history due to its atrocious details, but Oppenheimer dwells on many of the worst details in order to make us sit up and listen. This is a subject that cannot possibly be ignored any longer, and because of this it is the most important film of the year, from a director slowly shaping up to be this decade’s most vital filmmaker.
The subject of the documentary is Adi, a forty-something eye-specialist who we follow around on his daily duties of going door-to-door, fitting people for glasses. Adi’s brother was brutally massacred as part of the mid-sixties purge, in a way chillingly re-enacted by his killers in some of Oppenheimer’s older footage.
In the present day, many of the now senile people who made up memberships of the “death squads” are being visited by Adi to be fitted with glasses. Many of them already know Oppenheimer (or “Josh” as his interview subjects call him, so comfortable they are around him) and are confused as to why they would let this optometrist interrogate them on their roles in the massacre.
Although Oppenheimer remains an off-screen presence, this is still a more conventional, subjective documentary than previously, as Adi frequently holds the killers accountable for their actions and we discover frequent, gruesome details about the murder. Two of the killers claim that they stayed sane by “drinking the blood of their victims”, as this was “the only way to stay sane in war”.
After getting them to deliver harrowing war tales, Adi turns the knife and informs them his brother was a murder victim, to which all the subjects either feign a lack of responsibility to the killings or ignorance of the political situation, in spite of what they’ve said before. This lack of compassion and willing to be unaware of the true nature of what they’ve done is a bold display of human nature at its very worst.
A Film About Vision And Memory
The “look of silence” itself is likely a reference to Adi’s profession, or his ambivalent stare upon encountering that his brother’s killers do everything from boast about their crimes to singing bizarre songs on Casio keyboards, refusing to get swept up in the heightened, surreal emotions each situation provokes. Yet as this is a movie so concerned with the theme of vision, the title could equally be a reflection on the beauty of the Indonesian countryside that conflicts with the violent nature of war – nature is always silent and never reacts to the atrocities it sees.
The fact that this is one of the most boldly cinematic documentaries in years means the visual style of the film invites comparisons with Terrence Malick, in particular his World War II epic The Thin Red Line. That movie often ignored the war scenes in order to show how insects and other wildlife were continuing life as normal whilst carnage unfolded around them. Here, Oppenheimer cuts away from documentary subjects in order to show the beauty of the countryside, or mundane details of day-to-day Indonesian life, seemingly unaffected by the historical trauma.
The movie is also concerned with memory, most notably in the juxtaposition between Adi’s 100-year-old father (suffering from crippling Alzheimer’s that makes him think he is 16), with Indonesian society’s refusal to remember the true nature of the atrocities. The movie never openly states that Adi’s father has Alzheimer’s, allowing for his conditions of memorial deterioration to progress in ways that compare with those of the killers; the father can’t remember the war, whilst the killers refuse to remember anything negative, even if everything they say points out that they were far from the heroes of the saga. Cinema as a medium is thematically entwined with memory, as filmmakers try to visualise and re-stage elements of the past (not coincidentally, the theme of The Act of Killing). Here, Oppenheimer uses the theme of memory in an even more vital way, as this is a movie about reminding Indonesian society of the true history of this story.
The inherent corruption in Indonesian society, allowing for members of death squads to still hold high positions of power in government and elsewhere, means it’s time for the Indonesian people to remember the true extent of the killings and reform their society. I said earlier that ignorance is bliss – due to not being burdened with the trauma of Indonesia’s past, maybe Adi’s aged father is the happiest person in the movie, as he is the only person who cannot physically remember the true extent of the shockingly recent history.
This is something that proves to burden every generation portrayed here, from the very old to the very young (who are taught misleading facts in school lessons). That a person with a crippling mental illness, as well as several physical deformities, can be referred to as the happiest person in the movie goes to show why it’s vital not to remain ignorant of this subject. Of course it is harrowing, but it’s also important.
Conclusion
The Look of Silence never feels like a history lesson. It is a human story that grips you firmly in an emotional vice from the opening minutes. Its harrowing nature means it is one of the best films I’ll never watch again; this lack of rewatchability is the sole reason why it isn’t scoring full marks. However, you don’t need to rewatch Oppenheimer’s film to remember the horrors that lie within it. Once you see The Look of Silence, I can guarantee you will never forget it.
Have you seen The Look of Silence? How does it compare to The Act of Killing?
The Look of Silence is out now in the UK and July 19 in the US. All international release dates can be found here.
(top image source: Drafthouse Films)
Does content like this matter to you?
Become a Member and support film journalism. Unlock access to all of Film Inquiry`s great articles. Join a community of like-minded readers who are passionate about cinema - get access to our private members Network, give back to independent filmmakers, and more.