Showing posts with label Film article. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film article. Show all posts

Idealism versus Commercialism in Indonesian Cinema

The most important event for Indonesia is the proclamation of independence on a Friday morning, 17 th August 1945. Dutch literary historian Teeuw states that in the first years of independence, large numbers of young intellectuals were drawn to film.

Rivai Apin, Asrul Sani, Siti Nuraini, Sitor Situmorang, Trisno Sumarjo, and many others were fascinated by this new medium, which promised so much—especially in a land where for the man of letters contact with the (not yet) reading public proved to be such a great problem (quoted in Sen 1994: 19).

As I mentioned earlier, Andjar Asmara inspired the playwright Usmar Ismail to enter filmmaking world. Asmara later asked Ismail to become his assistant-director in 1948 to make films for Netherlands Indies Civil Administration (NICA) Company, South Pacific Film. Ismail at that time was just released from Dutch custody (he was captured in Jakarta while doing his task as an intelligence officer), and he left his military duties to make films (Said 1991: 36).
Another prominent figure who had influenced Ismail and other early filmmakers from the idealistic group was Dr. Huyung, also known as Hinatsu Eitaro or Hue Yong. He was a Japanese-half Korean soldier, and his duty was to dominate the theater industry in the Japanese occupation era. In 1948, Huyung founded Cine Drama Institute in Jogjakarta, the capital city of Indonesia at the time. One of the lecturers was the prominent thinker and founder of Taman Siswa[8]Ki Hajar Dewantara, the first the minister of education and cultural affairs. But the institute soon disbanded. Then, Huyung founded Stichting Hiburan Mataram (Stichting Recreational Foundation) where young Indonesian artists studied and developed their talent (Said 1991: 38). Huyung and other intellectuals taught filmmaking in Jogjakarta.

On 31 st March 1950, Ismail founded Perfini (Perusahaan Film Nasional Indonesian, National Film Company) (Said 1991: 39). The first film produced by this company is Darah dan Doa, and its first shooting day, 31 st March 1950, became National Film Day. This is actually Ismail’s third film after Harta Karun (Hidden Treasure) and Tjitra (Image). For Ismail, Harta Karun is the first effort to unite cinema with literature, and Tjitra is the first film “…to raise the question of national consciousness which was common in literature for a long time” (Sen 1994: 18). But only in Darah dan Doa he felt the freedom of expression and free from producers’ commercial pressure. Ismail consciously made it for the Cannes International Film Festival (Said 1991: 48). Ismail emphasizes: “I cannot say that both early films are my film, (because) when I wrote and made them, I receive so many instructions (from the producers) I did not always agree with”[9]. Ismail also writes: “…because for the first time, a film was made by Indonesian filmmakers, technically and creatively, and economically. And for the first time, Indonesian film raised the issues about events in national scale” (Ismail 1986: 170)

Even though Dewan Film Nasional (National Film Council), in its conference on 11 th October 1962, decreed the first shooting day of Darah dan Doa, the official acknowledgement from the Indonesian Government occurred in 1999 when President Habibie legitimized the Presidential Decree (Keputusan Presiden, Keppres) no. 25/1999.

The funding for this film was helped by Tong Kim Mew, a Chinese movie theater owner (Said 1991, 51), and senior officials of the Siliwangi military division (Sen 1994: 20). The story speaks of the saga of the march by the Siliwangi Division from Jogja to its old base in West Java after the Dutch took Jogja in 1948 (Said 1950: 51). Ismail’s second film, Enam Djam di Jogja (Six Hours in Jogja, 1951) is about the general attack of an Indonesian guerilla army just as the Dutch were trying to prove in the international forums that they were in firm control of Indonesia (Said 1991: 52), with focus on the role of Diponegoro Division. The main characters were all real people (Sen 1994: 22).

The next film, Dosa tak Berampun (The Unforgiveable Sin, 1951) represents the first exodus of the Indonesian war as related to real-life topics. Siasat, a leading journal of the period, published a review claiming that Ismail “had introduced a new motif into his film whose characters can be found in our daily life” (Said 1991: 53). The article states that in that film, a conscious attempt has been made to apply the principles of good film, something rarely seen in Indonesian films. The article stated that the lyrical Italian realism has left a good imprint there and, for the time being at least, that film can be said to be the best Indonesian film ever made. “Perhaps they were not sufficiently explored but the film does, nonetheless, offer new possibilities for Indonesia. Usmar should have further exploited his material. The film abounds with redundant scenes; yet there are other scenes which Usmar could have shot to strengthen his film” (quoted in Said 1991: 53).

Said mentions that at the time Perfini was established, neorealism (which was a new trend in filmmaking) was riding high in Italy. For Said, some aspects of Italian neorealism occur in Ismail’s early films. “The Italian Neorealist believed in taking the camera out into the street and using common people, not stars. The same opinion was shared by Perfini people. Usmar was so fanatic about this new approach that Perfini’s films always introduced new actors with no previous film experience” (Said 1991: 54). Said also mentions other aspects. First, the constant lugging of the camera to the street or shooting location instead of the studio. Second, just like the neorealist succeeded in showing the worn face of post-war Italy, Perfini did its best to show the real face of Indonesia. But he highlights that “Although a comparison might be deemed exaggerated, there are also some Indonesian pararrels to the resistance that sprang up in Italy” (Said 1991: 54).

Other Perfini’s film, Embun (Dewdrops, 1951) was directed by Djaduk Djajakusuma and highlights a common problem in those days, the veterans, depicting the village life with its detailed visual description of living customs and beliefs (Said 1991: 54-55). The story followed the common model of a frustrated ex-revolutionary being brought back to life and society by a woman’s love (Sen 1994: 23).

After the production, Ismail was awarded Rockefeller Foundation fellowship to study for a year at the University of California in Los Angeles (Said 1991: 55). A year later, he made films under the influence of Hollywood style and tried to strike a compromise between idealism and commercialism. But, the spirit of the idealistic group of filmmaking still existed in Perfini. For example, Krisis (Crisis), directed by Ismail in 1954, dealt with Jakarta’s housing problem and depicted a variety of human characters and a range of human behavior and responses to this distressing situation (Said 1991: 56).

Regarding the connection between Perfini and realism, Nyak Abbas Akub, a director specializing in comedy who always put social issues on his films and began his career at Perfini, explains that in Perfini days, he and his colleagues got the stories for the films from reality. The Long March of the Siliwangi Division gave birth to The Long March; the general attack on Jogya gave birth to Six Hours in Yogya; the struggle for housing in Jakarta in those days became the source of Crisis; while Past Midnight was based on the difficulty that veterans were having in adjusting to society after leaving military service. “The stories and the themes that we chose were totally different from these that were dominant in the cinemas at that time “ (quoted in Said 1991: 102).

Teguh Karya mentions that Ismail’s films were indeed “…films depicting Indonesia as it is. The themes and the characters Usmar created really reflected Indonesian thinking and the Indonesian personalities” (Sen 1988: 6).

In the same year Perfini was founded, 1950, Huyung established Kino Drama Atelier (Dramatic Film Studio) and made Antara Bumi dan Langit (Between Earth and Heaven) written by prominent novelist Armjn Pane about the Eurasian citizenship problem in Indonesia after the revolution (Said 1991: 49; Sen 1994: 22). Before the film was made, some kissing scenes appeared in newspapers and it was stated that the still photos were taken from the film, hence it became controversial. On 21 st January 1951, four months before the censor board gave its approval, the Medan branch of Pelajar Islam Indonesia (PPI, Indonesian Islamic Students) protested the film (Said 1991: 50). Expatriates in Indonesia also made protest against its sensitive content. As a result, the film went to the censorship council, who changed the title to Frieda, the main character’s name. And it became just an ordinary love story because several scenes had to be cut and be replaced with new ones (Said 1991: 50). Pane refused to put his name on screen (Sen 1994: 22).

Also in 1950, Perusahaan Film Negara (the State Film Corporation) began producing feature films as well (Said 1991: 39).

On 23 rd April 1951, Muslim businessman and politician Djamaluddin Malik (later known as the Father of Indonesian Film Industry) founded Perseroan Artis Indonesia (Persari, The Indonesian Artists Company) (Said 1991: 39). This is the indigenous film company that started the big studio system (with cooperation with studios in Manila, Philippine, for post-production and later built a big studio in Jakarta suburb of Polonia with complete equipment) (Said 1991: 41) and with Hollywood style approach. Thus, this is the first indigenous company from the commercial group of filmmaking, as Malik stated: “If the public wants Indian, we’ll give them Indian until they’re sick and tired of it” (Said 1991: 42). Its first film was Sedap Malam (Tuberose) directed by Ratna Asmara, Andjar Asmara’s wife.

One of the important moments is when Persari and Perfini worked together to produce a film directed by Ismail and written by Asrul Sani, Lewat Djam Malam (After Curfew, 1954). This was the film that got critically and commercially successful achievement (Said 1991: 43), the union of the commercial and idealist filmmakers. The story is about Iskandar, a medical student and revolutionary soldier, who finds himself unable to face the better prospect of civilian life in post-war Indonesia and feels betrayed by the corruption and mismanaged leadership surrounding him (Sen 1994: 39).

On 30 th August 1954, Persatuan Perusahaan Film Indonesia (PPFI, The Association of Indonesian Film Companies) was founded by Malik and Ismail. In 1955, Malik proposed the first Indonesian Film Festival (Festival Film Indonesia, FFI) on 30 th March-5 th April 1955. Lewat Djam Malam won the best film award and represented Indonesia in the 2 nd Asia Film Festival in Singapore. But the result had some problematic affair because Lewat Djam Malam was not the only best film announced in FFI. Tarmina, a Persari production directed by Lilik Soedjio also became the best film. Consequently, many people questioned this result, considering Malik fully sponsored the festival (Said 1991: 43).

But Ismail and Malik, and also Sani, were still best friends and united in one political party, Nadhatul Ulama (the Awakening of Islamic Scholars, a traditional Islamic party). In PPFI, they made public statements and arranged demonstrations by film actors and other film personnel to urge the government to lower the quota for Indian movies (Said 1991: 44) because they consider Bollywood films the destructor of Indonesian film market. Later, all of them made Tauhid (Pilgrimage to Mecca). They united against Indonesian Communist Party (Partai Komunis Indonesia, PKI).

From the leftist filmmakers, Bachtiar Siagian is the most prominent director who made film with socialism-realism approach such as Tjorak Dunia (Color of the World, 1955) and Turang (Beloved, 1957). Tjorak Dunia relates the love stories of ex-revolutionary soldiers and social rehabilitation set in a poor rural zone, and Turang is about a love story between a guerilla commander and a village head’s daughter told from the “people in revolt” point of view (Sen 1994: 42, 45). His other film, Daerah Hilang (Lost Land, 1956), was truncated by the Board of Censors because “the Censors were frightened by the honest depiction of social realities” (Sen 1994: 43).

Later, the influence of the communist party grew and had great effects on Indonesian cinema.

----------
by By Ekky Imanjaya, Editor of Rumahfilm.org, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Read More......

Happy endings come at a high price

I often had trouble deciding whether the TV series Sex and the City was feminist, anti-feminist or if indeed it needed to be one or the other.

On the one hand, the show depicted four independent women who talked openly about sex in great detail, a once taboo act for women. The show addressed realistic problems (some more realistic than others) faced by the modern-day city girl. Carrie would present these issues with a question at the beginning of each episode -- Do men prefer women less successful than them? Is monogamy realistic?

On the other hand, the show depicts women as superficial shopaholics whose lives revolve around their dates, one-night stands and relationships with men.

There is, however, no question about the new film, Sex and the City: The Movie.

The film's major flaw is not its lack of plot or even its lack of character development, which was to be expected -- but rather its depiction of women.

As a woman, I found the film insulting. All that the six-year TV series had accomplished was destroyed in a mere 142 minutes.

Women are portrayed as two-dimensional, with their only interests being men and materialism. Similar to the TV series, it opens with a voice-over from Carrie: "Women come to New York for the two Ls -- labels and love."

The film starts off with a cheap stereotype, which is carried on throughout.

It seems in New York people are not only looking for love, they are looking for marriage and stability, and at any cost.

In the film, Carrie is weak and sidesteps any conflict between her and her man, Mr. Big. She is afraid of causing a stir and afraid of instability, or life without a man.

The film centers on the wedding between Carrie and Mr. Big. They decide to get married because it seems like the right thing to do, in the interest of finances and stability. It is an engagement devoid of romance.

Early on in the film, Big leaves Carrie and her multi-thousand-dollar Vivienne Westwood dress at the altar. She then spends the majority of the film wallowing in self-pity. Compared to this wallowing the resolution is quick and straight to the point. All is forgiven after a set of plagiarized love letters. And then comes the twist; Carrie, it seems, could actually be to blame for their falling out.

In the end, she compromises her values, friendship and dignity for a man who calls her "kid" and "young lady". The power imbalance between the two is, unfortunately, palpable.

And while the movie revolves around Carrie, the other three women -- Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda -- have equally undignified subplots.

In the TV series the three women were very strong characters, from the sexually promiscuous Samantha to the traditional Charlotte and the cynical Miranda. They were uncompromising within their own individual set of morals. In the movie these characteristics are diluted, and at times the characters, except for perhaps Charlotte, go against their values as displayed in the TV show.

Samantha becomes fat to the dismay of her friends, although it is difficult to see the alleged bulging belly. Charlotte, who is the brunt of some unsavory toilet humor, stops her daily running routine because she is pregnant. And Miranda, distraught by her own relationship problems, doesn't satisfy her man enough and is a suggested reason for Big's inability to turn show up on the big day.

Added to the mix is Louise, Carrie's new assistant, from St. Louis with an obsession for Louis Vuitton and love.

Consumerism was always a part of the TV series. But over-priced designer goods came with social consequences, ethical dilemmas and at times, realistically, debt. In the film, there are no such consequences as Carrie shops big and spends big.

At the beginning of the film, Big and Carrie buy a penthouse apartment in the Big Apple. The apartment is airy and has ample room. Daylight streams through the large windows. It is "heaven" and close to perfection save for one major design flaw: the size of the closet. Without a walk-in wardrobe where is our petite, fashionable protagonist supposed to house her numerous clothes, shoes and accessories?

When Big unveils her walk-in wardrobe, bigger than most New York apartments, Carrie gasps and declares her love. Love and labels are intertwined, and women, therefore, are shallow.

Where in the TV series the four main women had successful careers -- Samantha was a successful PR agent, Miranda a partner at a law firm, Charlotte a successful art dealer and Carrie a columnist of a major metropolitan daily -- the trials and tribulations of the workplace play an almost nonexistent role. This helps to reinforce the two-dimensional stereotype of women.

The women screeched and squawked every time they greeted each other, and I shuffled in my seat, cringing and lamenting the loss of four great characters.

Perhaps the problem is in the format; after the book, Sex and the City was only ever meant to be a TV show. In the TV series the women did not persevere through bad relationships and did not put up with the arrogance or ignorance of their partners. The format required them to move on, and with each new episode there was a new conundrum. The playing field was even.

But with the desire to have a happy ending in the movie, Carrie becomes feeble. Carrie must live happily ever after in the arms of one man even if that means forgoing her dignity and the dignity of women alike.

----------
This article was written by Jemise Anning and Angela Dewan, published at The Jakarta Post

Read More......

Monogamy, marriage new values at 'Sex and the City: The Movie'

They were once four savvy single women whose friendships came before love affairs, whose shoes came before a mortgage and whose men never came before they did, or else they'd be thrown out of bed. They were Carrie, Miranda, Samantha and Charlotte of HBO's instant-hit series Sex and the City.

Ten years after the TV show's debut, promiscuity and independence is replaced with monogamy and marriage in the newly released Sex and the City: The Movie.

Dr. Astrid Henry, gender and women's studies professor at Grinnell College, in Iowa, the United States, and author of the essay Orgasms and Empowerment: Sex and the City and Third-Wave Feminism, said the film was conservative, contrived and inconsistent with the TV series.

"I was bothered by the ending, which has all the women married, except for Samantha, who, at the end of the film, is 'old, fat and alone'. She's left in a sort of 'loser' role, even though she was always happy with her autonomy in the series. The ending of the film makes her seem much more pathetic than the show did," she said, adding the characters had all become more like the character Charlotte in their quests for marriage and monogamy.

Noted writer Ashley Sayeau said the characters had evolved and the transformation from bachelorette to bride was in line with what the characters wanted.

"As in the series, the film did a good job of showing each character come to terms with what she wanted out of her life -- not what society wanted for her, or what men wanted for her, or even her friends, but what she wanted. I loved that Sam became single again," she said.

"The show said to them, if you want to marry, great. If you don't, that's great too. The same goes with the decision to have children or choose a particular career."

In its time, the show received more praise from feminists than criticism.

Dr. Nicola Evans, a media and cultural studies lecturer at the University of Wollongong, Australia, said, "Sex and the City broke new ground in the rather conservative terrain of American sitcoms. It refused to worship at the altar of marriage and monogamy, daring to suggest there might be other objectives in life worth pursuing."

Sayeau said, "It was one of the only series in the last decade that showed independent women making money, having relationships and just existing on their own terms."

Henry said, "The show made people more aware of female sexuality and the idea that women are sexual beings with desires -- and that they have a right to talk about their desires in public."

The show impressed feminists around the world with its portrayal of women as intelligent sexual beings, but critics agree the TV series' socio-economic politics did not reflect most viewers.

"The show represented a particular vision of female empowerment -- one focused on white, economically privileged, working women, who did not seem to be facing any of the traditional forms of oppression addressed by feminism," Henry said.

Evans said, "The series draws on the very familiar and very narrow demographics of TV land where to be visible, women must be white, young, attractive, well-paid and obsessed with expensive shoes."

Sayeau is aware of this skewed demographic, but said there was room for such a depiction on TV.

"Try to remember that it is a work of popular culture, not a literary theory text. As such, it's no surprise that it made certain concessions, like lots of shoes and nudity. But overall, I think the show did a lot more good than it did bad."

"Critics get upset by all the sex the women have, and all the money they make. They call these things as if they are making an aesthetic argument, but in reality it's a moral judgment. In real life, after all, women are making more money than ever and marrying later," she said.

In the film, however, the characters' socio-economic status has been pushed up a notch. The four are depicted as the shopaholics they always were -- times 10. When Samantha is feeling tied down in her relationships, she goes shopping, filling the trunk of her car with Chanel and Gucci goodies as she drives off with her new pooch, resembling a 50-year-old botoxed Paris Hilton.

"The film totally sidesteps questions about money and makes it seem like everyone is now in the upper tier financially, and that having three published books has made Carrie a wealthy woman -- highly unlikely -- who can now afford to give her assistant a US$5,000 designer bag," Henry said.

Sex and the City: The Movie offers a dramatic breakup, a Cinderella marriage proposal, a Vivienne Westwood wedding dress and one perfect husband.

These larger-than-life fantasies will please those looking for glamor and a fairy-tale ending, and will frustrate those hoping the characters had frozen in time just as they were in the TV series -- when it was all about women, sex and the city.

source: Jakarta Post

Read More......

 
eXTReMe Tracker