By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Pride, Unprejudiced: The Look Of Silence

the-look-of-silence

Cool-headed, assured, formally rigorous, shapely and even extremely beautiful, the two documentaries by Joshua Oppenheimer and his sometimes-anonymous collaborators about genocide and its eddying effects on humans and history are unlikely masterpieces. And yet here they are: two bulging versions of performatively provocative The Act of Killing (2012) and the slim, bone-chilling The Look Of Silence (debuting June 27 on POV).

While the first documentary on the lasting effects of the 1965 Indonesian genocide was criticized by some for its baroque invention, a parallel film, which could be considered an “answer film” to a movie not yet questioned, was in production, the masterful The Look of Silence, a deep, dark, calmer, in ways more disturbing take on the tenuous bonds of civilization and contours of recorded history. The Act Of Killing explores the consequences for all of us when we build our everyday reality on terror and lies,” Oppenheimer has written, while the tense, often hushed Look Of Silence “explores what it is like to be a survivor in such a reality.” There’s universality to the story of man killing man, and Oppenheimer is intent on demonstrating it in his exact, severe examinations. But he also holds the concern that the depiction of terrible acts can leave the viewer blameless, convinced of their own goodness.

Oppenheimer turns a friend who was a collaborator on both features into the protagonist of his “poem,” an optometrist named Adi, the youngest son of a family of survivors that discover how the older brother, Ramli was murdered, and the identities of the killers. Ramli’s death held more weight than the anonymous thousands who were murdered, because there were witnesses. This afforded Oppenheimer a storyline, an oral history that would ground his style. Adi confronts the men, in scenes shot while The Act Of Killing was being edited, while the Indonesian strongmen and their thugs only knew that Oppenheimer and his crew had gotten close to the top of the government and military, and not how they would be portrayed in the final film. The device is inspired, and transports from the opening scene. In synopsis, the eye exams as ritual sound like they would almost too exquisite, even on-the-nose, as a device to express myopia and blindness, but the figurative implications grow and grow over the course of the film. Adi invites the offenders to have their eyes examined, and as these elderly men are confined behind his examination machine, he extends his customary gentility with his patients to the killers, strategically drawing from them details of their crimes against his brother and others. They each eventually realize that he is a survivor of their crimes.

Speaking to Oppenheimer for an extensive interview Summer 2015 issue of Filmmaker, the 40-year-old native Texan, educated at Harvard, a MacArthur “genius” and now resident of Copenhagen, agreed with me that the two films don’t traffic “accountant’s truth,” the derogatory phrase that his co-executive producer Werner Herzog has often invoked. “They avoid a kind of journalistic or historical account. They provide only enough information as required for the viewer to understand the next scene,” Oppenheimer told me. “The film doesn’t become a primer about Indonesian history. I think the films avoid being about Indonesia as such, by focusing on the perpetrator and the men around him in The Act of Killing, and one family in The Look of Silence. Instead of becoming smaller, they grow, because they could be your brothers.”

The Look Of Silence debuts on POV on Monday, June 27 and is followed by a conversation between Oppenheimer and Werner Herzog (and here).

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon