Monday, 8 December 2014

Case Study: The Art Of Killing

What is the main genre of this documentary?
The main documentary mode in my opinion is observational. i have come to this conculison due to the fact that there is a lack of communication with the filmmaker and the actors. the main parts of film is where following the 'gangsters'. There are long takes throughout the film, this shows what sort of effect it had on people and how they act with what they have done. the main actors feel they are making a film, however the cameras is always rolling catching every they do in and out of there acting.

 Are there any sub-genres?
Also another genre used throughout this film was performative. They re-enacted events that happened in the past to capture what they had done. The main actor Anwar Congo felt a lot differently from beginning to end. When they were making the re-enactment scenes Anwar changed his view on he had done. He realized all the harm he has caused people and how sick it was. It has took him all his life to realize what he had done. Anwar said he had nightmares but never changed his opinion, however he started to feel differently over the 8 years of filming and going over everything. performative documentary is quiet personal to the people that are involved and telling the story.  Reflexive is also a sub-genre for this documentary; reflexive is where the audience is aware of the techniques  used within the audience. They get confused   it was a representation off the community they live in and how they feel they should be treated in their community.

What relations did Joshua Oppenheimer have with his subject?
Joshua had learnt the native language of the country he was going to film in. This helped him fit in and communicate easily with the Indonesian people and be able to understand their social network.
Being able to speak the native language has made him fit in better made him more respected and easily understood on what he is trying to achieve and find out. Joshua also spent 8 years altogether filming and finishing this documentary. He would of spent a lot of time with people that lived their and experienced what has happened he also spent time with the main 'gangsters' forming friendships and really getting into detail about what had happened and how they felt at the time and present.

How did it help/hinder the documentary?
Joshua First went to this country trying to find out as much as he could about the topic, asking different people for all the facts they knew. However Indonesia was and still is such a close nit community it was very hard for them to let out the information that Josh and his team needed. In the end Joshua realized that he wasn’t going to get the information he needed by asking question to people in the community. They needed to re-think their strategy and find a different way of getting information. He knew that many people in the area liked the idea of being a movie star he used that to his advantage. He spoke to the main ex gangsters ____________ and they agreed to make a film on what they had done, they also asked other people in the community to help re-enact what happened in the past through the knowledge off the Anwar Congo from his first hand experience. This helped Joshua build and form a relationship with the subject.

What was the relationship between the documentary and reality?
 At the beginning of the documentary Anwar Congo wouldn’t show any remorse to what he had done. He was proud to share to the rest of the world what had happened. He gave the impression that what he done was right. Towards the end of the documentary you can see that Anwar Congo was starting to feel differently about what he had done. We first started to see this when he was re-enacting the past. More scene were re-enacted and you could tell he was beginning to see what he had done, and how many lives he had effected. You first see this when he is getting tortured, Herman Koto puts wire round his throat and begging’s to pull, once the scene is over Anwar is a state he can barely moved and feel drained. The main point in the film is when Joshua makes a point of saying while the torture scene is being played back to him is 'you say you feel terrified there but you knew you was only filming you will never be as terrified as the people you tortured as they knew they was going to die. The last scenes in the film is Anwar going back to where he was at the begging of the documentary (the location where he killed many humans) while he was he told us that he killed 'human begins' not 'communists' the then starts to retch showing he has come to terms with what he has done.

How did this documentary represent its ideas?

Throughout the documentary there are many different styles used to give the effect it did. There was observational filming which gave most the main styles to the filming experiencing what they was doing and talking about while not acting. Interviews also took place so you could fully understand what they were talking about and why. There was some primary imagery, which helps the viewer visualize what it may have been like back, then, voice-overs gave effect to the films and also related media.

No comments:

Post a Comment