T

he Act of Killing did not win Hollywood'€™s favor. The activist-oriented systematic promotion of the documentary, however, has helped it to have a significant impact on public discussion of the mass killings of 1965, both in Indonesia and internationally. A single film could never overthrow the hegemony of half a century of indoctrination, but it has '€” especially given the guerrilla activism that has got it around the traps in Indonesia '€” punctured that hegemony. Activities and processes aimed at ending that hegemony embodied in the scores of Indonesian and foreign books, articles and independent video documentaries about what happened in 1965, exposing the mass killings and repression, have received an important boost through the film.

It is worth reflecting on why the film has reached a wider audience, either directly through viewing or through public discussion, than other previous films. Films like Chris Hilton'€™s Shadow Play and Rob Lemelson'€™s 40 Years of Silence were both excellent,so was Danial Indrakusuma'€™s prize-winning Kado Buat Rakyat Indonesia (Gift for the People). John Pilger'€™s powerful New Rulers of the World also made sure the truth was exposed. The Act of Killing'€™s ultimate political strength is that it contained something that no other work has contained '€” at least as far as I am aware.

It contained a confession. Indeed, the whole film is a confession by Anwar Congo, his mates and his patrons that they did carry out brutal and bloody murder of communists and leftists after 1965. In contemporary society a confession is always a thousand times more powerful and convincing than the testimonies of victims, especially where there are no '€œneutral'€ witnesses. Confessions also have an aura of indisputability. Why would anybody confess to such crimes, if they did not in fact commit them?

These confessions are an important victory for the victims as well. Any doubts anybody had, that they may have been exaggerating their sufferings are dispelled.

The confessions are shocking in at least three ways. First, they are told with no sense of shame or guilt and indeed with a sick pleasure in the reenactment of blood-thirsty actions. It is only as a result of the filmmakers prodding that minuscule inklings of guilt occasionally surface, and even then they are insignificant resulting in no behavioral change at all. This is shocking for many viewers in that what is considered normal morality is doubly violated: no shame, but rather relishing the sadism.

A second way the confession is shocking is that as far as we know, it has been the only confession in 50 years. Following the film'€™s release, some Indonesian media sought out other confessions. Nobody has had regrets; no moral dilemmas in 50 years. Some point to a moral void or numbness that the loneliness of this confession seems to reveal. Yet there is a long history now of Indonesians who have found out what happened and tried to raise awareness of the issue, but faced a hegemony backed by a resilient power structure. The recent report on 1965 by the National Commission on Human Rights in describing the related violence as criminal and for which people should be held responsible indicates significant sections of society that are not numbed.

Perhaps for most of Indonesia'€™s 240 million people, and for many descendants of those who were killed and tortured, they just don'€™t know. Note the systematic and deep indoctrination for 50 years through the schools, mosques, churches and media; 100 percent backed by the state and the combined authority of all the country'€™s intellectual and political leadership. As more books, films, reports circulate this indoctrination is being eroded, especially as high school teachers become more critical.

Maybe the most systematic effort has been informal screenings of the documentary in Indonesia and the making available of a free download version. The organizers estimate that over 20,000 people watched informal screenings in Indonesia. As of January, there had been 80,000 Youtube views and about 12,000 downloads from the film'€™s website. This is impressive given the tiny resources available, but it is nowhere near a critical mass that could start to challenge the hegemony. Only repeated screenings, with context and discussions, and with other films and materials, on national television would start to present a real challenge. Given who owns and controls television, this is unlikely in the immediate term. The process is still at the puncture stage. And the more punctures the better.

The third shocking aspect was that the confessions were a result of anthropological entrapment '€” the filmmaker'€™s offer to help Anwar and his gang make a film reenacting their memory of what they did. The filmmakers acted as artists and underground-agents going behind enemy lines to get the information they needed. Given the kind of society that 1965 created with a rigid ruler-ruled power structure, getting confessions would need undercover work. But again, these confessions were mad boasts. Of course, a confession obtained by undercover anthropologists would be partial and uneven, unlike that obtained from systematic investigation and a trial. Moreover, it was a very minor figure being examined and not, for example, an Army general who organized the nationwide pogrom.

There is very little that moves one emotionally in this mostly revolting film. There is, however, a very moving political symbolism: a long list of credits for '€œAnonymous'€ '€” all the Indonesians involved in making the film. The puncturing of the hegemony in Indonesia, the successful foray onto the international stage, would not have been possible without '€œAnonymous'€. It is moving because anonymity is still necessary. It is inspiring because being Anonymous hasn'€™t stopped them.

Viva '€œAnonymous'€!

The writer is a lecturer in politics and international studies at the College of the Arts, Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia.