Joy in killing?

Act of Killing is the most disturbing film we have seen. I say that because it wasn’t like the film we saw about the Nazis that showed all perspectives of the soldiers and the victims. This film only tells us what they did to kill the people. They glorified the way they would torture and kill the people of Indonesia. We didn’t get any history background of the event. The main focus was to highlight how Anwar Congo a gangster in Indonesia used to kill all the people. The film didn’t have a purpose even if the purpose was to show the bad things that happen in the even why do it by filming Anwar try to create a movie reenacting all the ways he killed? Seems absurd to try and give fame to such people.

2 thoughts on “Joy in killing?

  • May 20, 2017 at 8:40 am

    I actually read someone from Joshua Oppenheimer his motivations for creating the film in such a way. He began by wanting to tell the stories of the victims but did not want to endanger the ones he knew. He found out later when questioning members who were involved in the killing that they all boasted about the killings. Pretty much everyone he spoke to boasted about it. He believed that this boasting was some kind of way for the criminals to justify what they had done. Through this boasting the story would still be told and would not be censored by the Indonesian government. This is the reason and where he probably got the idea of letting them re-enact so that the public would see the horrible ways in which people were murdered during the Indonesian mass killings of 1965-1966. He specifically chose Anwar because he believed he had noticed a sadness or regret in him during his boasting. You can see the Author put that narrative in there by the way the film ended. I’m not sure because i haven’t watched it but supposedly Joshua Oppenheimer’s second film “The Look of Silence” focuses more on the victims of the tragedy. Specifically it follows a victim trying to confront the men about the brutal murder of his brother. He visits some of the killers as well as the people who collaborated with them (Which included his uncle surprisingly) under the pretense of an eye exam. I personally think however that Herman Koto was not a requirement for this film, out of all the people he could have chosen, Herman Koto had no respect for the dead. It didn’t seem like he cared at all, he laughed about everything. During the movie he didn’t seem to take anything seriously with his dramatic acting and cross dressing in fanciful outfits.

  • May 23, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    I completely agree with you on the fact of it being absurd to glorify and give these people the fame of doing these horrific acts towards people who literally deserved none of it. These gangsters pretty much just framed all these people for their own sick gratification in wanting to kill someone. The way they talk about these acts is like if they get a thrill just by reminiscing over it let alone actually doing the act. I also don’t understand how it is that the director was able to just sit back for pretty much the majority of the film and just watch and listen to what they were saying and doing. Like I don’t understand how the director didn’t feel like he should be questioning them as to making them give a “logical” reason as to why these things were done. They literally talk about these acts like if it is something normal that everyone sits around their coffee tables and talk about. To me it really is just a sick thought that there are people in our society that think and act this way


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *