I’ll state it up front: Joshua Oppenheimer’s documentary The Act of Killing is easily one of the best films of 2013. It’s also one of the most difficult of films to recommend. The Act of Killing is so profoundly unsettling, you may find yourself becoming physically uncomfortable.
Their memories of these events are skewed to say the least. Indeed, Congo and his crew see themselves as movie gangsters, archetypal Hollywood antiheroes. Their visions of their crimes, then, skew oddly cinematic and certainly surreal. In one scene, Congo asks that a compatriot dress in drag and decapitate him (?). Although many of their visions also reveal how truly blameless and heroic they see themselves; in one segment, Congo’s victims thank him for sending them to Heaven.
Much of The Act of Killing is largely mechanical, however, and the details about the many murders these men committed are chillingly accurate and sincere. They share their preferred methods of murder, cleaning up the blood, and the smells associated with these activities.
Exclusive Clip: Anwar Congo reveals his solution for cleaning up blood in The Act of Killing.
Oppenheimer is clearly digging for regret. He wants these men to acknowledge – without him prodding or accusing – that they have committed a crime, and a terrible one at that. It’s hard to get to that point, though, when the subjects have lived without remorse for so long, and belong to a sort of “good ol’ boys” clubhouse of powerful elite. Corruption and violence are such a natural part of this regime (it seems to be a regular practise to bribe voters), that remorse is the last thing on their minds.
They are also charmed and thrilled by the opportunity to make a real movie! What a delight! Their fantasies, you see, are so informed by their favorite gangster pictures, that’s all they seem capable of recreating. In this, The Act of Killing reveals a vital function of cinema, as how it can be used to both cloud and reveal the truth. This seems like a direct influence from the film’s producer, Werner Herzog, who has always been interested in the truth/fiction divide that is an intrinsic part of cinema. Eventually Congo does begin to see the pain he caused, and the film’s ending is a gutpunch of regret that offers only the smallest amount of solace. Maybe the act of killing is easier than we think. 50 years too late. There will be tears. Devastating, brilliant, horrible, emotionally destructive, The Act of Killing is unlike any other movie.
The director’s cut of The Act of Killing is a full 44 minutes longer than the 122-minute theatrical cut, and while the extended footage does offer some small further insights into the lives of these men (a lot of the new footage involves Herman Koto, one of Congo’s right-hand men), it seems wise to keep it trimmed down. The film’s impact is greater when we’re more focused on Congo and his own journey. Some of the extended sequences of gangster filming do give the viewer a sense of the workaday imagination of these guys, but it also slows the film down. Whichever cut you see, though, the devastation will be clear.
Also on the Blu-ray is a commentary track by Herzog and Oppenheimer which is more insightful than anything I could add, as well as a conversation between Herzog and star documentarian-slash-executive-producer Errol Morris, and I could watch those guys talk about anything. Democracy Now! also interviews Oppenheimer, although that interview is a bit more politically charged than academic.
You should see this film. But steel yourself.
Witney Seibold is a featured contributor on the CraveOnline Film Channel, and co-host of The B-Movies Podcast. You can read his weekly articles Trolling, Free Film School and The Series Project, and follow him on “Twitter” at @WitneySeibold, where he is slowly losing his mind.
