‘Soekarno’ biopic : Let the arguments begin Julia Suryakusuma  ;  The Author of Julia’s Jihad

JAKARTA POST,  08 Januari 2014

                                                                                                                        

Historical movies and biopics often invite controversy, and Soekarno: Indonesia Merdeka (“Soekarno: Independent Indonesia”) is no exception.  If it’s true that “history is an argument without end”, as Dutch historian Pieter Giels says, it was only to be expected that this film would be beset by squabbles. The fact that Sukarno was the most colorful, controversial, charismatic and flamboyant of the seven presidents Indonesia has had, only guaranteed intense feelings.  But the dispute between Rachmawati, Sukarno’s number two daughter and head of the Yayasan Pendidikan Soekarno (YPS, Soekarno Education Foundation), MPV Pictures, the producer and Hanung Bramantyo, the film’s director, is frankly, a bit of a joke as neither can be taken seriously, not Rachmawati in her demands, nor MPV in their deeply flawed film. Rachmawati objected that the film deviated from the “agreed” script, and that Ario Bayu, the actor playing the part of Sukarno, was not suited to the role. He was insufficiently “nationalistic”, she said, because he lived in New Zealand for 11 years. So the longer one lives in one’s own country, the more nationalistic one is? What about Ho Chi Minh who lived most of his life abroad but led Vietnam’s independence? Pretty ahistorical argument, I would say. Admittedly, embodying Sukarno’s stature and complexity is a challenging task for any actor. Ario has a passing physical resemblance to the young Sukarno, but his acting is self-conscious, wooden, sometimes even dorky (!), and nowhere close to capturing Sukarno’s charisma. It takes a great actor to play a great man, which Sukarno certainly was, for all his flaws.  Soekarno was justifiably criticized for many things. Clearly, there was not enough research (just two months!). This meant the film was guided more by commercial interests than a genuine attempt to  understand history.  It also had many anachronisms, from the use of incorrect language and costumes, to the insertion of Papuan faces in the crowd during the reading of the proclamation scene on Aug. 17, 1945, when West Papua was only “integrated” into Indonesia in 1963!  The historical chronology was also plain wrong in parts and there is bad continuity editing as well as weak character and plot development. The film also pays more attention to Sukarno’s love life than to his struggles to create a new nation that would unify the largest and most diverse archipelago on the planet.  But the most damning criticism I’ve heard is that the film continues the policy of de-Sukarnoization developed by the Soeharto’s New Order regime to diminish the president’s towering presence in Indonesian history. These critics say that Soekarno focuses primarily on Sukarno as a playboy and Japanese collaborator — lackey even — suggesting Indonesia’s independence was merely a gift from the Japanese. Sadly, that was also the (strong) impression I got from the film. So is Soekarno an attempt, in fact, to discredit Sukarno? The messages are certainly mixed, perhaps  because of conceptual confusion and a big dose of pseudo-nationalism. Even before the film begins, the national anthem, “Indonesia Raya”, is played, and the audience asked to stand up and sing.  This suggests the filmmakers wanted to arouse nationalistic sentiments but the contents of the film itself contradicts this. So what gives? Like I said, conceptual confusion and commercialism. Hey, Sukarno sells! For all its serious flaws, I’m glad the film was made, precisely because of the controversy it generated, which has sparked a flurry of debates on its historical content. In any case, visually Soekarno was a good movie to watch — artistically, the makers tried hard to recreate the appearance of Indonesia between 1912 and 1945; it had the right combo of romance and action, blood and violence; it had good looking actors, beautiful natural scenery and an uplifting musical score. You don’t need an understanding of history to enjoy these things! At best, Soekarno is pop history, distorted and far from perfect, but it’s a start. As controversial film director Oliver Stone said, “History is a struggle of the memory” and in Indonesia we suffered historical amnesia for the 32 years of Soeharto’s rule. The construction of history was monopolized by his regime as part of its “stupidization” of the Indonesian people.  In 1984, the 271-minute docudrama Pengkhianatan G30S PKI (The Treachery of G30S/PKI) was released. Sponsored by the New Order for indoctrination purposes to justify military authoritarian rule, it was their official version of the alleged communist coup. Obligatory viewing for all, it was screened on television annually on Sept. 30. In 1971. Ben Anderson and Ruth McVey produced the Cornell Papers, a very different analysis of the alleged Communist Coup, which was followed by many other alternative analyses, but all by foreign scholars. It was only in 2012 — 38 years later — that Joshua Oppenheimer’s The Act of Killing emerged as sort of a filmic response to Pengkhianatan G30S PKI. Rotten Tomatoes (a well-regarded website devoted to film reviews, information and news), gave The Act of Killing a 96 percent rating, describing it as “raw, terrifying and painfully difficult to watch […] a haunting testament to the edifying, confrontational power of documentary cinema”. As Stone insists, “We must always question those who tell us what to think”, meaning we should create our own versions of history to counter the historical myths propagated by those in power. That’s hard work, but many Indonesian historians have been doing their best since 1998.  The Reform Era also marked the rebirth of independent film-making, addressing previously banned topics on religion, race, (alternative) sexualities and […] history. Invariably, the biopics and history films invite intense debate.  And that’s as it should be. As they say, debate is a sign of maturity, so, let the “arguments” continue. Maybe it will help us grow up!  ●