THE LOOK OF SILENCE

International co-production, 2014, 103 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Joshua Oppenheimer.

The Look of Silence is a companion film to the director’s The Act of Killing. Joshua Oppenheimer’s earlier film took audiences by surprise, sometimes making them aghast at the stories of the massacre of communists by the military in 1965. What was horrifying in that film was the actual footage of some of the killers remembering what they had done, no compunction, re-enacting the killings on screen.

The Look of Silence is, in some ways, easier to watch than the previous film though no less confronting.

Oppenheimer filmed in Indonesia, especially in 2003 and in 2012 in various locations, collecting a great deal of material which has been edited into the two films (the new film having some American television footage and reporting of the time).

This film uses the device of having a central character, Adi, born after the massacres, a son as a consolation for his parents saddened by the arrest and murder of an older son, Ramli. We see Adi with his wife and children, his little boy going to school listening to a teacher with an anti-Communist tirade, with his father contradicting the point of view of the teacher.

Adi is an optometrist, travelling round, testing the eyes of his clients, using a red frame (which features in a sinister way on the poster for the film) for the different lenses, helping people to see more clearly. This is obviously an image for the film and its perspective and message.

This time Addy interviews several of the killers. They are no less callous than those who re-enacted the massacres in the former film. Here, they speak to killers who were proud of what they did, have no hesitation in describing the killings, take Addy to the Snake River where they disposed of the bodies, one of them even having a sketchbook of drawings of what they did. Adi later goes to visit the family who are shocked at the news, and his showing television footage about their father, about the sketchbook. As can be imagined, the first reaction is to deny the past, but Adi has evidence.

Another person interviewed is his uncle who was a guard for the prisoners who eventually makes excuses for what he did, that he was not in charge. Gradually, with the help of someone present at the time but who escaped, the true story about Ramli and his arrest, escape, re-arrest and torture and death is revealed.

There is a further interview with a man and his daughter, the daughter having to admit what her father had done – including tossing a head amongst a group to frighten the Chinese.

As with The Act of Killing, there is an exposé of this year of living dangerously in Indonesia, the role of the military, the role of the government, the number of people involved in arrests, torturing and killings of a barbaric kind, and, while the past is past…, yet.

1. The work of the director? Investigations in Indonesia? His film-making? The impact of The Act of Killing? Information about the killings in 1965, the military, the deaths of Communists? This film as a companion to The Act of Killing, a complementary film?

2. The differences between the two films? The re-enactments of situations, the descriptions by the killers? The perspective on the political situation, corruption, the military? The focus of a family, on one man investigating about his brother? Looking for the truth? The perpetrators and their attitudes, happily showing places of execution, recounting the stories, the book with the sketches of what had happened? The brother, born after the events, the family not knowing what happened to their son, the effect?

3. The director, his presence, behind the camera, some references to him, and responding to his questions? His involvement?

4. The title and its ambiguities? The poster with the reference to the optometrist and his testing glasses and lenses?

5. The use of television footage, the NBC coverage in the time? Oppenheimer filming in 2003, 2012, the edited material? Different locations, editing, pace, the close? The musical score?

6. The use of Adi, his family, wife and children, his son and the strongly anti-Communist lessons, talking with his father, his father contradicting the lessons? Accompanying him on some of the interviews?

7. His mother and father, their age, the mother caring for the husband, washing and tending, his being blind? The death of their son, Adi being born later? Their grief? The continued visits, the father not remembering, the mother and her sadness?

8. The story of Ramli, his age, being taken, tortured, his escape from the truck, the arrest, the punishment and tortured, his death? Ramli’s friend being interviewed for the film, is telling the true story of his torture and death?

9. Adi as an optometrist, the image of the testing of spectacles and lenses, the red colour of the frames? The different meetings, talking, asking, not out for revenge but the truth, his sorrow?

10. Adi’s impassive face, his look of silence as he listened, the accusations?

11. The town, after 45 years, the memories, the silences, the anti-Communist stances, the myths about what happened, the interventions of the army, the brutality of the massacres, the torture, the disposal of the bodies, the vast numbers?

12. The two killers, cheerful, happily describing what they did, going to the Snake River, demonstrating what they did, egging each other on, the book of the drawings?

13. Adi’s uncle, the interview, his being a guard, his excuses, reaction?

14. The killer who had died, his wife, and his visit, their disbelief, Adi showing the television clips, the sons, the apology?

15. The girl and her father, his wanting to frighten the Chinese, the massacres, the head and its use? The family?

16. The impact of the interviews on the audience, on Adi, the revelations? The past his past, yet…?

17. The effect on the international audience, on Indonesian audiences, on the political authorities, military authorities? The need for a response?