User Reviews

With just two films to his name, both about the Indonesian mass-murders of the mid-1960's Oppenheimer has become the most important documentarian of his generation.

His second film, "The Look of Silence", coupled with his "The Act of Killing" has created a sea- change in the Indonesian truth, justice and reconciliation movement. Forcing new laws to be written and putting the government in a defensive position against the nation's media.

But Oppenheimer is more than an activist. He's an artist. His films are contemplative, playful and quietly confrontational. His visual attack is succinct, his marriage of form and theme is flawless and his moral intent is thunderous.

Where "Act of Killing" was concerned with a larger study of post-massacre Indonesia, "Look of Silence" chooses a more intimate landscape. Geographically, emotionally and cinematically it is regional. Concerned with a single killing, the men who did it – directly and indirectly - the family it affected and the small village that has lived with questions about other killings like it for fifty years. Where "Act of Killing" lived in absurdist grand cinema, "Look of Silence" exists in tight close-ups of the perpetrators, survivors and truth-seekers. More than anything, more than words, their faces tell the story. So much happens behind the eyes, around the corners of the mouth, in unspoken glances. The horror, doubt, guilt and seemingly impossible reconciliation stirs below the surface. For all the cinematic flex of "Act of Killing", this contained take on the same material, seems more haunted and human.

The star of the film, Adi the eyewear peddler, pursues this mission with intelligence and courage. We meet his family. His happy playful daughter, his thoughtful son, his cautious loving wife, his ageless mother (probably the most engaging character captured on film this year), his wisp of an ancient father, and his memory of a murdered brother, looming over everything. From them he finds the courage to question murderer after murderer face-to-face. The combination of his profession as an optometrist with his quest to seek truth would seem heavy-handed if it were fiction, but nothing here is inauthentic. In showing all of Adi's family, from the fresh and young, to the spent and dying, we see the full arc of life.

Lastly, the film makes a glancing but firm indictment against the American anti-Communist fervor that fed into - and the American corporations that profited from - these killings. It gives strong evidence that the Cold War, the war of ideology and the murder of millions, allowed for, and was even fought for, Western corporate dominance in places like this. And here the grinding up of human beings for profit in this situation is undeniable. Oppenheimer wants to make sure no one involved gets off without having to face, if not their own role in the massacre of millions, then at the very least, their culture's.

And so it goes, the people (wives, mothers, daughters, sons, fathers, husbands), the silence, the haunted jungle hum that fills most of the auditory space in the film, the great and overwhelming significance of it all… everything pools together to show us something words alone can't manage. Something about how a horror can be so great that its impact can loom over generations. About living with debilitating fear of those who have claimed power over you through violence. About the most nightmarish tendencies in humanity, and our courageous capacity to overcome the worst of ourselves. About just how difficult it is to look into the eyes of a killer and say, "I know what you did."

And more profoundly, more frighteningly… "I know you."

It's hard to "review" a movie like "The Look of Silence". You don't really watch it and evaluate it like you do anything else. You bear witness.

I have never been able to write anything about its prequel, "The Act of Killing". I broke my rule of reviewing every movie I watch on here because I just wasn't up to the task. Watching that movie, and "The Look of Silence" to a slightly lesser extent, was like being dosed with heroin and hit with a sledgehammer. The usual "disturbing" movie, documentary or otherwise, has an impact that can be shaken off eventually. With "The Act of Killing", I never really felt it, but I knew it was there. It took something from me. The impact bled through into my day to day life. It wasn't just like a bad dream. It was real.

Here is "The Look of Silence". It gives a different side of the story that "Act of Killing" presented, through the son of survivors of the Indonesian genocide. He learns about the fate of his older brother, killed two years before his birth. Then he confronts some of the killers and their families, though these meetings don't go as you might expect, especially for the son, Adi.

This movie really should be watched alongside "The Act of Killing". Whereas "The Look of Silence" is no less horrible in its descriptions of actual murder, I have a feeling that it is the goodness of Adi and his family you will remember.

"The Act of Killing" is one of the best, weirdest, and most disturbing movies I've ever seen. Joshua Oppenheimer's follow up documentary, "The Look of Silence," is more conventional in its approach, but it's also deeply affecting.

Oppenheimer returns to the same material he mined in "The Act of Killing," the slaughter of communists in Indonesia in the 1960s. The men who actually supervised the killings are alive and well for the most part, and still exercise a gangsterish kind of control over the country. Communists aren't still being murdered overtly and en masse, but one senses that it would be easy for someone to "disappear" if he/she pushed too hard against authority. "The Act of Killing" stuck close to the murderers, and we watched in stunned disbelief as they gleefully reenacted their killings, the heroes of their own demented movies. "The Look of Silence" follows a man whose brother was murdered as part of the Communist purges before he was even born, and now wants to confront the men who carried out the murder. It's unclear, probably even to himself, what he wants from these confrontations. Possibly just an apology, possibly simple recognition of what they did. The conversations run the gamut from cathartic to downright frightening (one man obliquely hints that he could make very bad things happen to the film's protagonist if he wanted to). But the reaction from all of the killers is essentially the same: the past is the past (even though in Indonesia it isn't), why are you bringing all of this up again, can't we just agree to forget?

Of course agreeing to forget is what makes horrific events like these possible to repeat. The most fascinating interviews are those not with the killers themselves but with the children of the killers, the people who have inherited their parents' legacies (on both sides of the conflict) and now must make something of the world they share. In some cases, the children learn details they never before knew and we watch them process them on screen in real time. It's difficult as a viewer to know how to feel about these inheritors of their parents' actions. On the one hand, they really can't and shouldn't be held accountable for things their parents did when they were children or possibly not yet even born. On the other hand, like it or not, we all inherit our own histories and have to at least acknowledge them, both the good and the bad, if we are to learn from them.

Both "The Look of Silence" and "The Act of Killing" are infuriating to Western viewers who have been raised to believe that freedom and justice eventually triumph and that evil, either individual or systemic, gets punished. These are brilliant films, and while they certainly sow doubts in my head about the state of mankind, I feel like a better person for having seen them.

Grade: A+

Act of Killing I bought with some trepidation and settled down on my own to watch it (and watched again immediately after with the Josh/Werner Herzog background discussion - rather the film background to the discussion). Next day I bought Look of Silence. Watched it next night both without and with the background discussion. I was mesmerised (and still am), and so many questions come to mind.

The two films work well together, Act of Killing being more overview and focusing on the killers and the political structure/mob rule that is still in power. Act of Killing doesn't particularly explore how they got away with genocide (why the world turned a blind eye), but this is alluded to carefully and specifically in Look of Silence.

I could write so much because the two films together have provoked in me a profound perspective on human horror, which has gripped me most recently with what we see on the news with ISIS (Paris Masacre).

What are human beings capable of, and why is an individual able to make such choices? What are the structures that facilitate the most grotesque of human acts of wickedness upon one another. Do we all contain wickedness, does a killer lurk inside us all? Does fear itself propel the killers - kill or be killed? Are we (cells in the human organism) enacting our worst imaginable terror, excising evil, I kill therefore I am?

Josh Oppenheimer, I applaud your work. The sensitivity and attention to the finest detail employed in your work is, for me, beyond words. The cinematography, colours you choose, balance in composition. Even the subtitles were easy to read. Beautiful lingering pauses. You said of one still scene, a bridge, pale green, a river bank; you have no words to describe how this scene makes you feel, what the scene says. For me this scene (in LoS) is terrifyingly beautiful, sad, the weight of recent history hanging there in the stillness. Embodying the sadness and fear. I love that still scene.

Superb, I do not have the words to describe what your films say to me... I will think about them for a long long time, and watch them again.

The 2012 Oscar-nominated documentary, "The Act of Killing", garnered world-wide praise and many awards for its shocking look into the current lives of the perpetrators of genocide in Indonesia during the mid-sixties. Its filmmaker was Texas-born verified genius Joshua Oppenheimer who lives in Denmark and has been making films since 1998. "The Look of Silence" is its companion piece, and where the earlier documentary was outwardly horrifying, this one is more quietly disturbing and, I believe, the more important.

After my viewing of it finished at 7 a.m., I was lowering myself into a warm bathtub when suddenly I became haunted by the feeling that headless bodies were floating past me as if I were in the Snake River where the corpses had been dumped. Indeed, I couldn't put the film out of my head the rest of the day, and haven't since. The film follows an Indonesian man named Adi Runkun whose brother had been brutally murdered in the 1965 purge of 'communists' as he confronts, in the present day and under the pretext of dispensing eye exams, the men who had carried out the killings (and who had boasted and joked about the carnage in "The Act of Killing"). We also see Adi's humane care-taking of his nearly dead father whom he bathes and consoles, and other family members who have had to live among his brother's murderers for decades. What makes this film so effective is how Adi refuses to display any emotion at the killers while the director continues to portray them as human beings rather than monsters (no revenge film this), but Adi's silent stare keeps burning into their souls as they squirm uncomfortably, stubbornly offering lame excuses while refusing any expressions of regret. By this method Oppenheimer makes the film much more of an iconic document of man's inhumanity to man, forcing viewers to contemplate parallels in history, most especially the Nazis who perpetrated the Holocaust in Hitler's Germany.

There is nothing easy about this film, yet it is one of the few films you must not miss if you have a heart that pumps blood.

The Look of Silence is such a brilliant title for this movie. For one, it's a good description of Adi's reaction when hearing about the murder of his brother. (And it's oddly fitting that he is an optometrist). It's also a description of the response they get from the perpetrators, refusing to show any guilt or remorse, preferring to pretend that it never happened. And that seems to be what Oppenheimer is tapping into in Indonesia, the look of silence, and what really lies behind it.

This is definitely a companion piece to the previous "Act of Killing". Not because it does not stand on its own, which it does, but because they stand so much stronger together. Each documentary has an unique perspective on some mutual themes. Especially guilt and remorse.

It's amazing how it all comes together in a movie like this. Oppenheimer must have done a lot of work for this. Adi is such a good subject for a documentary like this, and having him being willing to explore this dark side of his nation's history, and openly talk to the people who brutally murdered his brother - it's such an unique way to explore all of this. And Adi does a really good job with it all.

I didn't really know much about the mass killings in Indonesia in the 1960's before watching this documentary, but something about it was so compelling and unbelievable that it practically was a mini-ww2. The Indonesian government at the time were very much like Nazi's, which is sickening, and this documentary brings light about the disgraceful ways religious propaganda can persuade people to kill.

What I got out of this documentary was that many of the killers didn't know what a communist was, let alone think they were people. They were spun lies about the communists and many took joy in killing them. One of the most eye opening documentaries I've seen, amongst one of the most sadistic and terrible mass killings in history.

A companion piece to his haunting and unique 2013 Oscar nominated documentary The Act of Killing, Joshua Oppenheimer's The Look of Silence may not have the same gut wrenching impact of his first Indonesian set tale but it's still a highly insightful and quietly powerful look at the after effects of Indonesia's mass killings in the 1965 Communist round ups.

Where The Act of Killing focused its attentions largely on Anwar Congo and his fellow death squad members who were responsible for countless murders of their fellow countrymen, The Look of Silence turns its attentive gaze towards average every day optometrist Adi Rukun and his quest to find those that played a part in the brutal murder of his convicted communist brother Ramli.

It's a much more straight forward tale than Killing that became something of a fever dream thanks to its subject's willingness to re-enact and portray their experiences through bizarre home made movies and scenarios that had to have been seen to be believed. Oppenheimer this time around sits his camera on subjects and doesn't shy away from the silence of the film's title where questions are raised and eyes and facial expressions say more than words ever could.

Rukun himself is also a likable presence and the way in which he deals and interacts with those that were involved with his brothers demise are the film's most powerful. He asks thoughtful and loaded questions and refrains from letting anger get the better of him and Oppenheimer never shy's away from allowing the story to play out without fanfare or manipulation and the true atrocities of what occurred in the beautiful countryside of Indonesia is never too far away from view even if this is very far from being a history lesson in the events.

A finely made compatriot of the Act of Killing that would make for a great double bill with its more accomplished forefather, The Look of Silence is not entertainment but it's an important and effective study on war, loss and family and another reason to suggest that Oppenheimer is one of the world's most interesting documentary filmmakers.

3 ½ self-illustrated books out of 5

'THE LOOK OF SILENCE': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

A companion piece to director Joshua Oppenheimer's 2013 critically acclaimed documentary flick 'THE ACT OF KILLING'. The film centers around one man, who's brother was killed; during the Indonesian killings of 1965 to 1966. Oppenheimer once again directed the movie; which was nominated for an Academy Award, for Best Documentary Feature. I found it to be almost as good, as Oppenheimer's previous feature (which I ranked as one of the best of 2013).

Oppenheimer follows an Indonesian man around, that survived the 1965 genocide; by the name of Adi Rukun. Adi's brother, Ramli, was brutally killed; during the 'communist' purge (as a young boy). Adi now wants to confront Ramli's suspected killers (with Oppenheimer's help). He bravely interviews these men, under the pretense of an eye examiner, and seeks uncomfortable answers; as the viewer awkwardly watches.

The movie is extremely disturbing, and hard to watch; like it's predecessor. It's also very moving, at times, but never truly satisfying; as Adi can never truly get the honest answers he's looking for (and the suspected culprits show no remorse, of any kind). It's yet another masterpiece, from Oppenheimer; but some will feel like it's just an extension of the other film. That didn't bother me though.

watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/A1MyBFioKXM

I don't feel as though this film does anything different than its predecessor. The issue at hand is no doubt important but I don't think I got anything out of this film that I didn't get from The Act of Killing. I understand that it is supposed to be a more personal view of the atrocities but it seems like there isn't much new information.

This is a review of the film on its own, not a review of the importance of the work that Oppenheimer is doing. I believe a film's importance and it's quality can be distinguished.

A fantastic companion piece to The Act of Killing, one of the most deeply disturbing films I've ever seen. But it's not fair to call it a continuation of that film, and what this is revolved around is inherently interesting and riveting in itself. "I knew nothing about it"... the whole film can be summarized in those few words. the film is infuriating in some of the same ways The Act of Killing was, but less so by the mere fact that it's less concentrated on the individuals who committed those acts. And because it concentrates on the family of a victim, it's heartfelt in a way it's sibling film wasn't. Fantastic, thought-provoking, discomforting in the ideas and questions that it touches upon.

"We'd drag them. Some of them screamed. 'Please, sir! Have mercy!' But we don't care. In fact, we beat him again to shut him up.". Two former death camp leaders proudly re-create the grisly scenes of the '65 purge of supposed "communists" under the instigation of the armed forces, which became widely known as the Indonesian Genocide. Documentarian Oppenheimer asks them an explicit question. "from here, can the prisoners see the blood?". "Yes, because the place was lit by torches.", they enthusiastically reply. "Because others went first. So he's given up hope. 'I'm about to die', he's thinking. 'I'd better accept it'", they describe the apparent thoughts of their victims before decapitating, mutilating and kicking their bodies into Snake River. "Feel free to take a photo!", passing a digital camera to Oppenheimer. They joyously pose atop the butchered souls of thousands, their blood stains infused with the earth they stand on. One of the killers hoists two fingers in the air, offering a peace sign, before proceeding with a thumbs up gesture.

Oppenheimer utilised this blood-curdling footage years later, by showing its profound horror to a middle-aged Indonesian man whose brother was an unfortunate victim of the national purge. Acknowledging the explicit nature of his country's past and yearning to learn more, he singlehandedly confronts the perpetrators who executed the killings with Oppenheimer documenting the anxiety-inducing conversations, under the pretence of an eye examination. Through the changing of lenses, this metaphorical dissimulation magnifies the retinas of "Adi's" brother's executors, allowing windows into their darkened souls to widen.

Predictably, much like with Oppenheimer's creatively profound companion piece 'The Act of Killing', these individuals expressed minimal remorse. Proud to serve their nation and glorify their political ideologies. However, the purpose of these bleak confrontations was not to agitate those that committed such atrocities, but to perpetuate a historic generational divide within Indonesia. The current generation educated with false truths to adhere to the current sociopolitical climate. "Communists gouged the eyes out of army generals", students are taught. Yet the truth couldn't be any further from that manipulative fabrication. Everyone seemingly forced into silence regarding the questioning of their own national history. Therefore, producing such an unflinching documentary that dares to question the morality and legitimacy behind one of the worst genocides in recent history, is of paramount importance. Not just to Indonesia, but every nation that endures tainted democracy. Inciting societies to educate themselves and not ignore the grave actions of their previous generation.

Oppenheimer challenges the boundaries of documentary filmmaking once again, crafting uncompromising perceptive enlightenment through one man. A man whom represented the nullified silence of those feared by their own government. A man whom fearlessly questioned the very individuals that shaped his current standard of living. Representing the suffering and fragility of an oppressed society. Understatedly profound, yet consistently unshakeable in nature. The inclusion of iridescent quietude, from expansive shots of village life to close-ups of metamorphosis, overemphasising the extinguished freedom of speech. Many of the confrontations delivering unwavering tyrannical sensibilities likening their ideologies to totalitarian repression, exhibiting minimal sorrow for the thousands they slaughtered. Conversations that rightly bury the words under the skin to those listening. Ranging from indirect threats such as "be careful, what you're doing may be deemed as communist behaviour" to Western influences including "America taught us how to hate communists". Undoubtedly disconcerting.

Reservations for the confrontation with "Adi's" uncle, whom was guarding "communists" before they were massacred, is the sole criticism this documentary obtains. Staged, exploitative and unnecessarily producing familial drama in a nation that is already fragmented and traumatised. Consequently Oppenheimer overstepped the line in that particular instance, despite "Adi's" insistence, creating an artificially uncomfortable atmosphere for the sake of drama.

However, whilst not creatively innovative as his former insight into the Indonesian Genocide, Oppenheimer's The Look of Silence unequivocally nullifies all emotive output, perhaps more so that his previous directorial efforts. It is unflinching. It is uncompromising. It is of paramount significance. We need boundary-testing documentaries like this to truly provide insight and to evoke human right activism. To microscopically magnify the actions of humanity's past and ensure they never happen again. "That's politics. Politics is the process of achieving your ideals", the former commander of civilian militia joyously states with a grimace. "In many ways...".

The Look of Silence. The follow up to Joshua Oppenheimer's incredible The Act of Killing, which focused on the unrepentant perpetrators of the under-reported (thanks to western support) 1965 Indonesian 'Communist' genocide. TLOS not as shocking as its predecessor (one watch was enough) but still eye opening and disturbing. TLOS focuses on the brother of one of the murdered who meets the perpetrators to seek solace and for them to express regret. A must see double bill - but the antithesis of popcorn fodder so not for a cosy date! 8 out of ten (The Act of Killing got 9)

It's weird how a documentary can make something as deplorable as killing another human being a chilling experience. If the killings that happened in Indonesia were shown on the screen in all their gory detail, there's a certain point where a viewer's mind just shuts off from all the violence. It's almost too much to watch, which is why interviews with those who did the killings is a different and almost more horrifying way to go about exposing this barbaric event. The Look of Silence (2014) is a tough movie to watch, but it is crucial for understanding how anyone could do something so vile.

Put in the framing of an optometrist trying to confront his brother's killers, The Look of Silence has this quiet, stoic energy about the horrific killings in Indonesia. I was in shock when these men talked so candidly, openly, and unabashedly about the atrocities they did to other people. There was no shame in what they did. They were either following orders or felt that it was their divine right to rid the world of these people in the most violent ways imaginable. The things they did to "remain sane" were just as gruesome.

The cinematography of these series of interviews was quite stunning, even if some shots hold on for too long. I was also in awe of the calm and collected nature of the interviewer, as he was talking with the very people who had brutally killed his brother. He didn't want retribution or revenge. I think he just wanted closure, or at least for these men to start to realize what they had done. Perhaps these men were only part of an older generation who thought that the killings they did were acceptable acts. By modern sensibilities, I hope people like this never come to power anywhere ever again.

A horrifying examination of killers who didn't know they were wrong, I give Look of Silence 4.5 stars out of 5.

"Every killer I meet, none of them feels responsible. They don't even feel regret."

Joshua Oppenheimer's follow-up to The Act of Killing is devastating, but important. He bears witness to crimes against humanity that were never punished - in fact, those who committed them were deemed heroes, and are still in power. He follows an Indonesian man visiting people and families with connections to the 1965 Indonesian coup, one that resulted in 500,000 to 1,200,000 people, labeled "communists," brutally executed - including the man's older brother. Like the previous film, we see elderly members of death squads talking openly about the murders and barbarity committed, which is incredibly aggravating to watch. We see a teacher indoctrinating his students, telling them that the communists were "cruel" and gouged the eyes out of the generals in the coup, when it was actually the military who did this. Most importantly, however, we see this younger brother (anonymous for his own protection) confront numerous people who were directly involved in the massacres and his brother's death. His forthright, simple question elicit a variety of response, some squirming, some defiant, and some downright threatening. There are claims from some that they didn't know what was happening, or that they were just following orders (that from his own uncle!), the statements of which are right out of the German playbook post-WWII.

All of these people seem to want the past to remain in the past, out of what seemed to be various forms of fear - the fear of being held accountable on the part of the killers, and the fear for their safety in the families of the victims. It's symbolic that the man who visits these people gives some of them an eye exam as a pretense to talking to them (hence the movie poster); it's as if he's trying to get them to "see" what truly happened nearly 50 years later, and to understand it for what it was - butchery, not heroism. His disturbed look as he hears the killers describing and justifying their atrocities echoes the viewer's thoughts, something which made this a more satisfying watch compared to The Act of Killing.

Obviously, though, this is not for the faint of heart. We see a death squad leader, now 72, who drank the blood of his victims believing it would stop him from going insane, describe lopping off a woman's breast and hacking her up because she was a "bad person." We see others who dragged hundreds of people down to Snake River, gleefully recount beheading them, and how their headless bodies bobbed up and down in the river afterwards. We hear a man describe how he worked day and night for three months to "exterminate" communists, burying them alive. We see an adult daughter say she had grown up proud of her father for exterminating communists, and how he was famous and respected, that is, until she hears him tell her that he brought the head of a woman to a Chinese shop to intimidate the Chinese, and that he drank the blood of his victims. While absolutely brutal, it's incredibly important for Oppenheimer to have documented it.

One thing that isn't touched on, probably because it was beyond the scope of the film, was just how complicit and supportive the United States and Great Britain were in all of this. One thug mentions that the Americans "taught them to hate communists," but it went much further than that. (This was the guy who had the audacity to think he deserved a trip to America as a reward for his good deeds, hoo boy if this doesn't elevate your blood pressure or make you want to weep for humanity, I'm not sure what will). We do see footage of a man explaining life in Bali to an American news reporter in the 60's, saying with a straight face that the communists had asked to be killed, and the news report going to explain how communists were being starved in camps and occasionally taken out to be killed. We also see how the union for the plantation workers at the Goodyear Sumatran Rubber Company was branded as "communist run," had its leaders and many members killed, and the survivors forced to continue working at gunpoint, which is practically a capitalist's dream. Think about that the next time you buy a tire.

The mass murderers stole the property of their victims and took their wives, so it's another case of political ideology hypocritically being used for personal gain, from these death squad goons all the way up to the top of the power structure in Indonesia. You think of the worst massacres in the 20th century, and you see them coming from the left (Stalin and Mao) and the right (Hitler and Suharto), and there are plenty of other examples on down that list. The dreaded "other," whose invented evils are cast into "reality" via propaganda, become the easiest means to power. One guy who was still serving in the Indonesian legislature (and had been for decades following the coup) essentially says that the ends justified the means, shrugging off a million deaths as "politics," and that it was the "process of achieving one's ideals." Ideals, ha. The image of the anonymous man's face quietly staring as something outrageous or horrific is being said comes to mind, and it probably will for a very long time.

In this "sequel" of sorts to the Act of Killing that focuses on the struggle of a man to know the responsabilities behind his brother's death, with stronger ties with Annah Arend't Banality of Evil than its predecessor in a sense that dehumanizing acts were done in 1965 without no one taking responsability for them and a hopeful idea behind the protagonist's will to still see humans and not complete and total inhuman beasts in the atrocious killers he interviews. A must watch after its main companion.

Nominated for an Oscar for Best Documentary in 2015

This is a sequel/companion documentary to THE ACT OF KILLING (2012) about the genocide in Indonesia, this time seen from the POV of the family whose one of its members been murdered.

Everything about this is strange. From the calmness of the people talking about the killings, to the calmness of the members of the victim's family. It's like everything is either trivial or told from a distance.

Plus, there is the strange situation of people talking about forgetting and forgiveness, while obviously remembering everything and basically threatening the brother. Again, very strange feeling throughout the entire movie.

Like the previous film, there is a strange feeling of trivializing genocide and brutally murdering of people. I thought the first movie was better constructed. This film feels like bits and pieces of interviews without a real coherent structure.