The Act of Killing (2012) DK. 117 min. by Joshua Oppenheimer

 

In 1965, the military at the time of the coup d’etat in Indonesia secretly killed more than one million communists, intellectuals, and Chinese under the name of “anti-community”. Now that 40 years have passed, the main offender of the assassination group, “Anwar Congo,” who led the massacre, is enjoying a luxurious life as a national hero. One day, a proposal comes in to make a movie about the achievements of their “great” murder. “Why not rekindle your genocide?” The massacre leader, Anwar Congo, and his friends cheerfully wrote the scenario directly and acted proudly into the murder replay. But as the filming progresses, the memory of the massacre suffers from strange fears and nightmares, and the film undergoes an unexpected flip. A shocking documentary that shakes human morality in unprecedented ways. Ugly humans when they are too close. What is at the bottom? A war that uncovers the true nature of human beings, and, among them, too many human beings, because it is for human beings, a war that is too human. In 1995, today’s movie, based on the Indonesian War of Ideas, is Act of KillThe background behind the film Indonesia The Indonesian massacre was carried out between 1965 and 1966 against Communists, the Chinese and the Left, to the Chinese and the Left, to those who were considered the Chinese and the Left. It was alleged that the Indonesian government and the military were accused and inflamed by the massive killings. 

The anti-communist storm that resulted from the attempted coup of the September 30 movement was responsible for the massacre, with the most widely accepted figure of more than 500,000 people killed in the process. The Indonesian massacre has led to the transition to the so-called “new order”, and as a result of such a major upheaval, President Soekarno was defeated and Suharto’s 30-year dictatorship was started. Meet directly with the army that slaughtered more than one million Communists and the headers of the violence organizations that had colluded with the political forces of that army, filming the slaughterers themselves replaying and filming the massacres they did. This is a documentary. There is a camera for the movie of the massacres replay, and there is a camera for the documentary team that takes the images. The technique of the movie is very strange. It is a documentary filming replay and filming replay. 

The most human videos for humans where humans were filmed. Are you the one who slaughtered over one million people? Did the director Joshua Oppenheimer, who headed in Indonesia with a camera to find the answer to that question, have found some answers? The most human videos for humans where humans were filmed. Are you the one who slaughtered over one million people? Did the director Joshua Oppenheimer, who headed in Indonesia with a camera to find the answer to that question, have found some answers? I don’t know what everyone thinks about the genre of documentary. Perhaps you think you are delivering a very boring and incidental ‘as is’. However, this film and documentary are not objective in the strict sense. This is because the director selects a specific portion of thousands of hours of shooting video, selects the sequence, and decides the order to create a story. I’m going to describe a simple scene. In the middle of the film, there is a scene where acclaimed Pancha Silas, who made a great contribution to the massacre, talk about heaven. What was their heaven? During the war, when they wanted a fifteen-year-old girl, they said that it was their joy and paradise for them to be as frightened as they wanted.

They laugh and talk about what they have gained in the era of the massacre. I put them on my cell phone in a small hand and watched them laugh and chatter. There was something inside me, and I felt the discomfort of the conversation they had. He who is talking about heaven probably knows. What kind of odor comes from your actions. And you wouldn’t have fixed it even though you knew it. Looking back at what I felt while watching the movie was that I could live by the bad thing of thinking about heaven. When the world sometimes does not lend you laziness, you are the only one who has to rescue your soul. I wonder if there is a message that the director throws at us strongly. But for the main character Congo in the movie, I felt a little different. He behaves like a little-known kid, happily showing his grandson a movie with his murder scene. All his actions are indescribable. As mentioned above, he was a person who did not know from the beginning that he was wrong, rather than the discomfort of dealing with the very selfish person who was saying heaven. This is the feeling of suffocation of trying to keep the logic with the person who can’t understand the language.

There is one unforgettable scene in the movie. Congo smiles. Congo laughs as a matter of course, replaying the act of killing someone. The person who left the commentary of the movie, the criticism and the commentary pointed at it and wrote it as a devil’s laugh. In fact, on the contrary, I thought the child laughed at Congo and thought about it. Because I have a laugh that I can build when I don’t know anything. There are times when the sins that he has exuded in this world are easier than spinning a spinning wheel and spinning a thread, and it feels like a very simple play. It was a surprisingly pure and light laugh that only the naive children of the world could see. When I looked up at it, it looked like a person, not as if I was looking at it from a distance. It proved that his laughter began with his ignorance, who knew nothing.

He also brought out the US Mafia movie that he saw when he was a child, using the Congo as his slaughter motif. The protagonists struck the villain very cleanly. Did the situation change if there was someone who could just say a word near the Congo? Congo. There are no villains around you either. If you look at them correctly, they can be Sumatra, not yours and they are different. The idea of heart and heart is different, the idea is different, and you should not kill anyone. Being able to have diverse opinions must respect each other. You have no reason to kill them. If the Congo did not kill anyone, did someone come in to replace the vacant seats in the Congo and slaughter tens of thousands? The Indonesian Communist Party massacre in 1965, when the massacre and the number of casualties were so high that it was classified as one of the three massacres in the world. The “slaughterer” who killed and survived in the middle of its history was the same as my grandfather. Joshua makes a shocking confession. This movie was born to make all the people who see the Act of Killing look back at me and our society around me, even a little.

What is an organization? And what is the world that rolls the organization? When world standards are not moral, there are too many to do. Isn’t half of the history books that way? It is difficult for us to live day by day, and we are tired and sleepy after the day is over, but we still have to think about one day today.