What happens to brutal dictators like Stalin or Castro in the aftermath of their atrocities? The Act of Killing suggests that it stays with you no matter how you try to justify or bury your past. Director Joshua Oppenheimer crafts an eerie, real tale of coming to terms with your past crimes, and all through the device of making people craft their own movie.
Oppenheimer’s subject is 1960’s Indonesia, where young gangsters ran rampant through the country. These young men, to remain “free” of government control, would round-up communists for the slaughter. He elects to show the atrocities committed by offering one of the leaders, Anwar Congo, a chance to create a movie about what he has done. Anwar sinks his teeth into the movie, but all the while Oppenheimer is using the movie as a guise to see how Congo will react to experiencing what his victims experienced.
The atrocities committed by the Indonesians are deliberately showcased in the first half of the film. The United States comes off very badly here; we helped prop up the gangsters during the communist fear during that time. As a result, the killers look at America fondly; mafia movies provided inspiration for various methods of homicide and helped craft the larger than life personas of the leaders (you can see this when outfits become a major discussion). We also fed these gangs lies: they are made to equate gangster with the word freedom. The Act of Killing makes it easy to understand why these men would be proud of what they did – a crucial set up for the second half of the movie.
The second half of the movie focuses on the individual members of the gang who killed people. Anwar Congo is by far the most fascinating; he is mostly living in denial of what he has done, electing to focus on the happiness in his life. When he agrees to film this movie, we get to see the people, past and present, he lets help with his process that offer other perspectives on the movie. Ibrahim Zinik (a pro-gangster journalist) joins Anwar in denial. Adi Zulkadry (a fellow executioner) has come to terms with his past and wants to make his sins public. Herman Koto (a younger gangster) dresses in drag and worries about the public perception of his group, the Pancasilas. These varying influences converge on Anwar in the third act, when he is forced to experience some of the execution techniques he used on “communists.” These scenes showcase the change happening within Anwar, culminating in a scene (repeated from earlier in the film) where Anwar goes to a rooftop where he murdered people. After the visceral reaction he had to the killing methods, he becomes sickened by a place he once took pride in. You don’t feel sympathy for Anwar by end, but Oppenheimer does find the human underneath the monster.
Reality gives the Act of Killing its power. The 1960’s executions in Indonesia were real. The power and hubris of the gangs were real. The faces of these killers is real. The emotional shift of the people through age and understanding is real. The juxtaposition of contempt and fascination in watching the Act of Killing gives the story a drive and energy that make the movie itself alive, and very real.