Political Genocide In The Film 'Act Of Killing'
The Act of Killing is a shocking, surreal film that offers a different perspective on genocide; it documents what occurs when those who carry out genocide are not punished. By giving the perpetrators of the Indonesia 1965-1966 communist genocide a platform, Joshua Oppenheimer can demonstrate the nonchalant attitudes toward the murders. On a broader scale, the film shows how the universal negative attitude towards Communism as well as controversy around political versus ethnic genocide allowed Indonesians as well as other nations’ governments to excuse hundreds of murders on the basis that they were fighting a force that somehow deserved to be wiped out.
Throughout the film, the executioners repeatedly said that they do not have any feelings of remorse or guilt, that “they did what they had to do.” Adi said that there was no trial and they were not found guilty, so there would be no reason for him to feel …show more content…
any remorse for the acts he had committed. However, in contrast to this, as the film progressed Anwar showed more and more signs of guilt, and spoke of his nightmares, where his victims haunted him. They clearly knew that murdering innocent people was wrong, yet they convinced themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Communists did not have the right to exist in society and this was how they avoided succumbing to total guilt and self-loathing for the crimes that they had committed. Like the Rwandan genocide, the United States and other Western nations turned a blind eye to the Indonesian Communist genocide, and in fact encouraged it.
The ideology of the “red scare” was still prominent, and most of the world believed that the word Communist could be equated with evil and dangerous. For this reason, the Western world did not bring any aid to the victims of the Indonesian genocide. In addition, this brings to light the nuances of political genocide. The controversy of political genocide is discussed in the article “Genocide in Indonesia, 1965-1966” by Robert Cribb. The definition of genocide has always been a source of debate, as “political murder was excluded from the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide on the grounds that political groups were inherently mutable and more difficult to define than ethnic and religious groups” (Cribb). The uncertainty surrounding political genocide, coupled with the dramatic stigma around Communism, allowed the United States to, with a clear conscience, ignore the brutal murder of hundreds of
Indonesians. In present times, the definition of genocide has solidified and most of the world recognizes that the Indonesian genocide was in fact genocide and was horrifically wrong. The Act of Killing helped shed light on this genocide. However, the groups that carried out the genocide are still in power in Indonesia and I believe that the final takeaway from the film should be that injustice is still occurring and that while simply being aware that something has happened is a start to changing it, true change will not be brought about just by learning that something exists.
Throughout the film, the executioners repeatedly said that they do not have any feelings of remorse or guilt, that “they did what they had to do.” Adi said that there was no trial and they were not found guilty, so there would be no reason for him to feel …show more content…
any remorse for the acts he had committed. However, in contrast to this, as the film progressed Anwar showed more and more signs of guilt, and spoke of his nightmares, where his victims haunted him. They clearly knew that murdering innocent people was wrong, yet they convinced themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Communists did not have the right to exist in society and this was how they avoided succumbing to total guilt and self-loathing for the crimes that they had committed. Like the Rwandan genocide, the United States and other Western nations turned a blind eye to the Indonesian Communist genocide, and in fact encouraged it.
The ideology of the “red scare” was still prominent, and most of the world believed that the word Communist could be equated with evil and dangerous. For this reason, the Western world did not bring any aid to the victims of the Indonesian genocide. In addition, this brings to light the nuances of political genocide. The controversy of political genocide is discussed in the article “Genocide in Indonesia, 1965-1966” by Robert Cribb. The definition of genocide has always been a source of debate, as “political murder was excluded from the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide on the grounds that political groups were inherently mutable and more difficult to define than ethnic and religious groups” (Cribb). The uncertainty surrounding political genocide, coupled with the dramatic stigma around Communism, allowed the United States to, with a clear conscience, ignore the brutal murder of hundreds of
Indonesians. In present times, the definition of genocide has solidified and most of the world recognizes that the Indonesian genocide was in fact genocide and was horrifically wrong. The Act of Killing helped shed light on this genocide. However, the groups that carried out the genocide are still in power in Indonesia and I believe that the final takeaway from the film should be that injustice is still occurring and that while simply being aware that something has happened is a start to changing it, true change will not be brought about just by learning that something exists.