I

need to state it upfront that this piece is not coming from a historian, but an Indonesian layperson. Right after I watched the movie and before I wrote this piece, I started a conversation with a group of friends residing in Indonesia. Their reaction was easy to guess: '€œI don'€™t like the movie because it gives a bad name to the Indonesian government'€. I can totally understand this stance because that'€™s how the majority of Indonesians have been indoctrinated.

Another strong opinion stated that the movie, which is aimed at an international audience, would just give the impression to the world that the Indonesian government has been treating the Chinese badly.

I am not going to discuss this. For me, it is just a matter of power and who is powerful enough to write it down and to instill it in the people. As an Indonesian studying overseas for quite a while now, I can understand where some Indonesians are coming from '€” that the crushing of the communists was justified and excusable. My best guess is that we might have been brainwashed into considering that the entire massacre was legal and ethical. Again, I speculate here.

What interests me more is the way the director narrates the story. I may refer to the movie as a life history. Seeing it from the life history point of view, this piece is trying to reconstruct the history from another point of view.

There are two reasons why this movie may be worth watching. First, it is because this movie is voicing the unheard voice, one which was not present when history was being written. Second, this movie is, as Cole and Knowles (2000) put it, provides a broader understanding of other human experiences. It gives us some understanding of the complexities of the killer'€™s decision making. Whether or not we want to forgive him, it will be our personal choice and inclination.

The truth is there and should be revealed. While I am not sure if I can forgive the killer(s), this movie has started a dialogue, which hopefully can mediate the differences and friction among the Indonesian government, the killers, the victims and the nation in general. Additionally, this piece has successfully made '€œthe audience aroused by vivid, intriguing, soothing, perplexing, provocative, and even shocking portrayals of all kinds'€ (Cole & Knowles, 2001, p. 103). Some scenes may be too vulgar or sadistic but I can tell that the director did a lot of research before filming.

Also, we can really sense a close relationship between the director and the protagonist (the killer) from the language he uses with Joshua Oppenheimer the director. He would simply call him '€œJosh'€ instead of Joshua and this may be a signal that this movie went through a long process in which both parties built up a close relationship. Some utterances in the movie show this relationship. The protagonist seems to be relaxed and re-tells the story without any hesitation. Also, I need to praise Joshua for being such a good listener, and that is the key to the life history: '€œ[the] willingness and commitment to listen'€ (James, 2000, p. 125).

Another good quality of Joshua is the position that he took. As an outsider, he clearly emphasizes it when responding to the killer'€™s regret: '€œthey [those who were killed] had much more fear because they knew they were going to be killed, unlike you who knew that you were being filmed'€. This very sentence is to convey that what the killer did was not right. At least that'€™s how I interpreted it. However, as much as I respect Joshua'€™s position, I feel that the closing seems to mislead the viewers. It is, at least for me, to sympathize or to forgive the killer. At the end, whether or not you want to forgive him, it is a matter of choice.

Moreover, this movie may have been made through togetherness (Bakhtin, 1981). Together the director and the protagonists have collected and recollected the memory and re-told the stories. This recollection and retelling attempts to understand cultural and social phenomena rather than understand only individual lives and personalities, though it is only narrated by one person. It is a view from a broader perspective, rather than a narrow-minded one.

It is our task to keep questioning and evaluating what we hear, read and see so that we don'€™t pass judgment too easily. It is for us to teach and educate our children that we need at least to be fair and listen to both sides of the story before making any decision or passing any judgment. This is the message that I took away from the movie.

That said, this movie is not to be banned or to be avoided, as we just need to employ our critical thinking in scrutinizing what'€™s good and what'€™s bad. It is obvious that it is not for children. It'€™s more for the parents so they can be have balance when narrating Indonesian history.

At the end, I was actually hoping there would be some historical background about the PKI (the Indonesia Communist Party) so that international viewers would understand it comprehensively. The lack of this part seems to take it for granted that all of the audience will have understood Indonesian history. Also, a statement from the Indonesian government that the act of killing of those people was sinful is missing. Some friends argue that this movie should also have captured the government asking for forgiveness from the victims. As this movie is from the other perspective, it may have been� wise to do so.

The last message I wish to convey is that we don'€™t have to worry that the world or other countries will hate us after seeing the movie. Simply put, those who are well-read and well-educated will seek other sources before passing judgment. On the other hand, those who hate easily, due to their lack of knowledge or ignorance, will pass judgment regardless. There is nothing we can do to for this group of people. Whether we want to be a hater or a critical thinker, it is up to us.

So, my friends, let'€™s forget our hatred, and instill love within us, because differences are inevitable. This movie is just another narrative from another perspective.

The writer is a PhD Candidate in second language acquisition, Fulbright Presidential Scholar, University of Wisconsin-Madison.