Charlotte Morris

June 4, 2014
Ames 18
Professor Diamond
Indonesia after the Genocide: A Commentary on The Act of Killing and Forty Years of
Silence
The Indonesian genocide of 1965-1966 was one of the largest and least discussed
mass-murders of the twentieth century. In response to a failed coup initiated by members
of the Communist Thirtieth of September Movement, the Indonesian army, under the
command of General Suharto, blamed the Indonesian Communist Party and recruited
civilian gangsters to carry out a killing campaign of alleged communists. More than
500,000 Indonesians were murdered. The Indonesian government did not punish the
gangsters who committed the majority of the murders, but rather recognized the
gangsters actions as patriotic and celebrated the gangsters as heroes. Moreover, any
remembrance of the mass-killings that differed from the historical narrative the
government promulgated was forbidden. Two films, The Act of Killing and Forty Years of
Silence, raise awareness of the genocide by documenting the story of the killings in
Indonesia, although each film has a different outlook. While The Act of Killing depicts the
boastful willingness of the perpetrators to re-enact the crimes they committed, Forty
Years of Silence shows the long-term psychological effects of the killings on the victims.
Watching the films in conjunction with one another helped elucidate the ways in which
the Indonesian genocide instilled feelings of pride in the perpetrators and feelings of fear
and anger in the victims. Moreover, the films depiction of the contrasting emotional
reactions of the victims and perpetrators alike raises the question of whether a national
reconciliation process is possible in Indonesia.
The Act of Killing focuses on the gangsters, or free men, who left their jobs
scalping movie theater tickets and formed a death squad in North Sumatra that killed
suspected communists. The film focuses specifically on Anwar Congo, who personally
killed close to 1,000 people using wire. In the film, Anwar and his friends are invited to

re-enact their experiences killing opponents of the military dictatorship. Although the title
of the film suggests that films focus is on the physical actsthe killing process itself
the film is not overtly violent. The visceral reaction we experienced was not from
watching grisly murder scenes but rather from seeing the willingness of the perpetrators
to act out the ghastly actions they performed and to do so with pleasure.
The perpetrators in the film seemed eager to share with the director the ways in
which they murdered alleged communists. We were surprised to find that they made no
effort to pretend that they had never committed murder, and they did not even apologize
for their actions. For example, in one scene, Anwar boasts that he was able to kill men
without too much blood by strangling them with wire. After eagerly simulating how he
strangled men with wire, and still wearing the wire around his neck, Anwar sings and
dances around a patio. The juxtaposition of musical sequences with the performance of
the killings was especially troubling. If not for the wire around his neck, it appears as if
Anwar is a typical, elderly man who enjoys singing and dancing. However, when you
consider that Anwar just demonstrated how to kill a person and that he has personally
killed over one thousand people, the scene evokes intense feelings of fear.
Anwar and other perpetrators appear to be proud of their actions rather than
apologetic because they were never required to admit that what they did was wrong.
Anwar, like other perpetrators, was never punished for his actions; instead, the
Indonesian government commended him and celebrated him as a local hero. As a result,
perpetrators of the genocide do not express any fear of retribution but rather have
contributed to a culture of fear. By depicting the perpetrators as honored members of
Indonesian society, the film raises questions about impunity and accountability. Although
Indonesia is considered a democracy, the boastful testimony of the perpetrators suggests
that the Indonesian governments response to the genocide of 1966-1965 contributed to a
culture of terror and repression that must be recognized and transformed.
Like The Act of Killing, Forty Years of Silence documents a process of reliving

and reflecting upon the Indonesian genocide. Yet, Forty Years of Silence provides an
entirely different perspective. Rather than showing the pride of the perpetrators, the film
depicts the terrorization that four families who survived the mass-killings face. Because
General Suharto gave the command to target alleged communists in Indonesia and then
served as president of Indonesia until 1998, it is only nowforty years laterthat
victims are able to share their stories. The film empowers survivors of the violence by
providing them with a voice that was for so long repressed.
The process of reliving experiences of violence has a very different effect on the
victims than it had on the perpetrators. In one especially moving scene, one of the
interviewers asks a child named Budi how he would feel if he returned to the place he
was tortured. Although Budi was born years after the killings, his eyes immediately
widen in fear and his face writhes in pain as he recounts the humiliation and torture he
and his family experienced because of their affiliation with the communist party. In fact,
Budi was placed in an orphanage because his village was so oppressive and stigmatizing.
The film reveals that the genocide has perpetuated a culture of terror that remains to this
dayforty years after the killings. The victims suffer from traumatic memories of the
violence and also frequently experience stigmatization as a result of their associations
with alleged communists.
The experience of victimization not only instills fear in those affected by the
genocide but also anger. Budi recounts that thinking about his family being tortured
makes him want to do evil things to torture, they way [the gangsters] did to [his]
family members. It was quite shocking to listen to a child say he will need a bottle of
chemicals, gasoline, cloth and a match in order to fight the gangsters who tortured his
family. Yet, Budis reaction is understandable. Anger is often a way we handle grief.
Budis ability to recognize that he is upset and wants to retaliate may be an important part
of his healing process. Yet, Budi and other victims must come to terms with their grief in
a way that does not perpetuate violence but instead fosters acceptance and peace. If the

victims of the violence can succeed in doing this and the perpetrators of violence can
admit their culpability and be made accountable for their actions, Indonesia has the
potential to heal socially and politically.
Conclusion
George Santayana, a twentieth-century American philosopher, said, Those who
dont remember the past are condemned to repeat it. The Act of Killing and Forty Years
of Silence are influential because both films document a gruesome and seldom-mentioned
event in Indonesias history. Although The Act of Killing may be controversial because it
focuses on the perpetrators, it succeeds in exposing the unresolved past that continues to
impact how Indonesians treat one another. Forty Years of Silence, similarly, reveals the
enduring effects of the Indonesian genocide on an individual and societal level. Due to
their different perspectives, the films help us to understand the Indonesian genocide more
comprehensively, and in doing so, help to encourage national reconciliation and prevent
history from repeating itself.