Political Genocide In The Film 'Act Of Killing'
The Act of Killing is a shocking, surreal film that offers a different perspective on genocide; it documents what occurs when those who carry out genocide are not punished. By giving the perpetrators of the Indonesia 1965-1966 communist genocide a platform, Joshua Oppenheimer can demonstrate the nonchalant attitudes toward the murders. On a broader scale, the film shows how the universal negative attitude towards Communism as well as controversy around political versus ethnic genocide allowed Indonesians as well as other nations’ governments to excuse hundreds of murders on the basis that they were fighting a force that somehow deserved to be wiped out.
Throughout the film, the executioners repeatedly said that they do not have any feelings of remorse or guilt, that “they did what they had to do.” Adi said that there was no trial and they were not found guilty, so there would be no reason for him to feel …show more content…
The ideology of the “red scare” was still prominent, and most of the world believed that the word Communist could be equated with evil and dangerous. For this reason, the Western world did not bring any aid to the victims of the Indonesian genocide. In addition, this brings to light the nuances of political genocide. The controversy of political genocide is discussed in the article “Genocide in Indonesia, 1965-1966” by Robert Cribb. The definition of genocide has always been a source of debate, as “political murder was excluded from the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide on the grounds that political groups were inherently mutable and more difficult to define than ethnic and religious groups” (Cribb). The uncertainty surrounding political genocide, coupled with the dramatic stigma around Communism, allowed the United States to, with a clear conscience, ignore the brutal murder of hundreds of
Throughout the film, the executioners repeatedly said that they do not have any feelings of remorse or guilt, that “they did what they had to do.” Adi said that there was no trial and they were not found guilty, so there would be no reason for him to feel …show more content…
The ideology of the “red scare” was still prominent, and most of the world believed that the word Communist could be equated with evil and dangerous. For this reason, the Western world did not bring any aid to the victims of the Indonesian genocide. In addition, this brings to light the nuances of political genocide. The controversy of political genocide is discussed in the article “Genocide in Indonesia, 1965-1966” by Robert Cribb. The definition of genocide has always been a source of debate, as “political murder was excluded from the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide on the grounds that political groups were inherently mutable and more difficult to define than ethnic and religious groups” (Cribb). The uncertainty surrounding political genocide, coupled with the dramatic stigma around Communism, allowed the United States to, with a clear conscience, ignore the brutal murder of hundreds of