Struggle between movement and genre in RI films<\/p>\n
By M.M.S. Marthawienata<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): People often wonder why Indonesian films are
\nrarely down to earth and rarely reflect the realities of our
\nsociety. Indonesia's film history shows that the prominent
\nfigures supporting movement have sunken into the steam of genre.<\/p>\n
Movement versus genre. What does that mean?<\/p>\n
If there is a mainstream cinema, there must be a counterpart;
\nside-stream cinema. Mainstream cinema is known as genre, whereas
\nside-stream cinema is movement. This definition is understood
\nuniversally among people in the field of filmmaking.<\/p>\n
In Hollywood, movement occasionally surfaces. Sometimes
\nit even appears in the Academy Award arena, which constitutes an
\nelement of the genre subculture. As an example, films such as
\nDriving Miss Daisy and Dead Poets' Society have found their way
\ninto the awards nominations.<\/p>\n
English sociologist Andrew Tudor, in his book Image and
\nInfluence (London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1974), stated that
\ngenre is an element of popular films, and can be classified as
\nmass culture. Its sociological value lies in its role as trend
\nsetter of mass behavior. Movement is regarded as an art: a tool
\nto convey important ideas for some intellectuals.<\/p>\n
Marketable films<\/p>\n
Genre found its form in 1918. Hollywood, at that time,
\nundertook some standardization after years of experience and
\nscooping up profits due to the downfall of the European film
\nindustry. This gave birth to formula pictures, which were the
\nrecipes for marketable films.<\/p>\n
Then, moviegoers all over the world became more and more
\naddicted to Hollywood films. Imitators appeared everywhere, even
\nin the Netherlands Indies, as Indonesia was known up into the
\n1940s. Some artists, especially those in Europe, rebelled against
\nthis trend. This rebellion was later defined as \"movement\".<\/p>\n
After World War II, an inspiring movement occurred in Italy,
\nwhich had a strong tradition of realism. This was later known as
\nNeo-realism. Movement filmmaking inspired Usmar Ismail to fight
\nthe tail end of mainstream genre in Indonesia that was led by
\nethnic Chinese cinema makers.<\/p>\n
The Hollywood genre flourished in the Netherlands Indies
\nindirectly, through Shanghai, and later on through Bombay. In the
\nNetherlands Indies, however, formula pictures had their own
\nscheme, which deviated from the original plan.<\/p>\n
This deviation explains why Indonesian genre films of today
\nare squashed by Hollywood formula pictures, and why locally
\nmade mainstream cinema is avoided by educated audiences, or
\nintellectuals.<\/p>\n
It is understandable that Garin Nugroho's films, Cinta Dalam
\nSepotong Roti and Surat Untuk Bidadari, did not win a place in
\nthe heart of Indonesian moviegoers, which have been conditioned
\nby Hollywood genre films. The same goes for films by Teguh Karya,
\nSlamet Rahardjo and Putu Wijaya. Their productions have shared a
\ncommon fate.<\/p>\n
When asked during a 1994 discussion, Garin acknowledged that
\nhe knew all of the formulas for Hollywood films. His challenge
\nwas how to make his films marketable, if he didn't try to use the
\nAmerican formula, which Indonesian moviegoers like?<\/p>\n
It is an artist's right to say that he doesn't care whether
\npeople watch his films or not. The fact remains however that
\nfilms are mass art, so it is a form of art that should be close
\nto its public, unlike paintings that can be a personal form of
\nart.<\/p>\n
In his 1977 thesis for his doctoral degree, upon which his
\nbook Shadows on the Silver Screen was based, film critic Salim
\nSaid, who is now chairman of the Jakarta Arts Council, stated
\nthat Andrew Tudor didn't just see the differences between
\nmovement and genre, but also the similarities between the two.<\/p>\n
According to Salim, when talking about movement as a pattern
\nthat was born out of resistance, Tudor warned, \"(The difference)
\nshouldn't hide the fact that the social dynamics is the same as
\ngenre. Both developed their own cultural pattern and their own
\neducated audience in their own particular situation.\"<\/p>\n
Furthermore, Salim stated, \"It is clear now that the problems
\nfaced by Indonesian films through criticism and even insult ...
\nare actually very basic problems. They involve values and habits
\nthat have become institutionalized through the relatively long
\nhistory of Indonesian films.\"<\/p>\n
\"There is this firm belief that films are simply a marketable
\ncommodity. They have nothing to do with the reflection of the
\nreal Indonesia.<\/p>\n
\"The story is concocted according to formulas prescribed by
\nthe producers, because of which the various elements of the
\nformulas -- sex, wealth, violence and exaggerated sadness -- are
\nquite often independently emphasized. Considering that the basic
\nformula is mostly obtained from foreign movies, 'the Indonesian
\nface' is obviously missing,\" writes Salim in the introduction to
\nShadows on the Silver Screen.<\/p>\n
What Salim said more or less means: Do not hope that big theme
\nfilms or at least films showing a true Indonesian countenance
\nwill be created from the making of genre films in this country.
\nProducers are business people looking for profit, not champions
\nof culture.<\/p>\n
These business people have been here for generations, whether
\nthrough blood relations or business inheritance, since the era of
\nLoetoeng Kasaroeng (1926), the first Indonesia film, up to the
\nera of Gadis Metropolis 2 (1994). Movement supporters have only
\nappeared since Darah dan Doa (1950), and only once in a while.<\/p>\n
Sometimes, the so called movement characters appear among the
\ngenre heirs. This trend occurs not only in Indonesia, but also in
\nHollywood. The big muscle phenomenon, Arnold Schwarzenegger and
\nSylvester Stallone, have been called \"new movement\", especially
\nin the style used for shooting the pictures.<\/p>\n
The emergence of this trend usually reflects the rebellion
\nof directors who usually give way to producers. In Indonesia,
\nthe producer also takes on the roles of talent scout, casting
\ndirector, story writer and script writer.<\/p>\n
This situation has given birth to the so-called \"under the
\ntree directors.\" The person officially called the director is
\nsitting under the tree receiving just enough money, while the
\nfilm is being directed by the producer, or somebody else brought
\nin by the producer from overseas, usually Hong Kong or sometimes
\nIndia.<\/p>\n
Tradition<\/p>\n
Somehow the situation motivates some directors to break
\nthe tradition at their own risk. Some finance their own films.
\nSometimes the film crews and the artists chip in to finance the
\nfilm. Some directors have asked for contract work but then
\nsubsidize the filmmaking from their own pocket.<\/p>\n
For example, Slamet Rahardjo, Christine Hakim and Rima Melati
\nchipped in to finance Teguh Karya's Di Balik Kelambu. Rima
\nMelati, who owns several restaurants, was responsible for the
\nprovisions. However, Teguh Karya has gained support from his
\nproducer to make movement movies.<\/p>\n
This first happened when he made November 1928, which won six
\nCitra Awards in the 1979 Indonesian Film Festival (FFI) in
\nPalembang, South Sumatra. He managed to get support from the
\nfounder of PT Inter Pratama Studio Laboratorium, Nyoo Han Siang,
\nwho also managed to attract the cooperation from genre producers
\nHendrik Gozali and Wiryo Wibowo.<\/p>\n
Another producer who has tried to create some movement pieces
\nis a woman novelist and engineer Prasanti, alias Budianti
\nAbiyoga. Through her collaboration with script writer Asrul Sani
\nand director M.T. Risyaf, they were successful in producing Naga
\nBonar, a film that sold well and was also successful in a film
\nfestival.<\/p>\n
There was also an unknown with his first film, Tjoet Nya'
\nDhien. He broke a record in the 1988 Indonesian Film Festival
\nwith this historical epic. His name is Eros Djarot, Slamet
\nRahardjo Djarot's younger brother. Together they founded their
\nown company, P.T. Ekapraya Film.<\/p>\n
Eros' head was full of movement ideas. But he later became
\nfrustrated when faced with the reality of the situation in the
\nfilm industry that had become extremely and tended to be
\nmonopolistic. Eventually even he lost confidence in his fight,
\nunless, he said, there was a chance for a \"big film\".<\/p>\n
Big film?<\/p>\n
What Eros meant was Indonesia. That was a natural
\nthought for Eros who is also a lecturer. Politics, economy and
\nart cannot be separated. Eros, who later played midwife at the
\nbirth of the Detik tabloid, was also persistent in building
\nrelationships with the upper class in order to get their support
\nfor his aspirations.<\/p>\n
Eros' predecessors -- Usmar Ismail, Djamaludin Malik and
\nAsrul Sani -- in their time were politicians. All three of them
\nbelonged to the biggest political party at that time, Nadhlatul
\nUlama. They fought against the Indonesian Communist Party in the
\npolitical arena as well as in filmmaking.<\/p>\n
But, in the case of movement versus genre, Usmar didn't
\nsupport Djamaludin. The latter pioneered the spread of the
\nHollywood subculture in Indonesia through NV Persari (Perseroan
\nArtis Indonesia) which was founded on April 23, 1951. He even
\ninvited an Indian director.<\/p>\n
\"If the public wants Indian style films, we give them Indian
\nuntil they get bored,\" he said. It wasn't that he didn't want to
\nmake good films. He was known to have provided scholarships for
\nPersari employees to study overseas. He also employed Asrul Sani
\nas head of story and script writing. Asrul was responsible for
\nstraightening up the quality of the stories.<\/p>\n
Usmar himself, on the other hand, experienced some rise and
\nfall in his desire to make movement films. He started his film
\ncareer in the South Pacific Film Company as an assistant
\ndirector to Andjar Asmara before making his own films, Harta
\nKarun and Tjitra. The latter didn't sell well and he resigned
\nfrom the company.<\/p>\n
To materialize his obsession to make movement films, Usmar
\nthen founded NV Perfini (The Indonesian National Film Co.) on
\nMarch 30, 1950. Like the Italian neo-realism directors, Roberto
\nRosselini and Vittorio de Sica, Usmar had a motto, \"Take the
\ncamera to the street and use ordinary people, not actors\/
\nactresses.\"<\/p>\n
Later on, not all of the films he produced reflected the
\nmanifestation of his true dreams. Sometimes he had to compromise.
\nHowever, his loyalty to taking the camera to the street made him
\nand Perfini pioneers.<\/p>\n
In the Apa Siapa (Who's Who) published by the now banned Tempo
\nmagazine, Usmar was said to have tried to make films as a medium
\nto express art and was successful in putting down the foundation
\nof domestic filmmaking. He is considered the \"father of the
\nIndonesian film industry.<\/p>\n
And when the founder of the film company, whose logo is a
\nbull, died on Jan. 22, 1971, Asrul Sani said, \"With his going,
\nhe took away the spirit that revived Perfini as an institution
\nthat maintained certain principles in the Indonesian film world.\"<\/p>\n
The logo still appeared when his second son, Irwan, produced
\nPacar Ketinggalan Kereta with Teguh Karya as the director.
\nThe film won a Citra Award in the 1989 FFI. In commemorating the
\n20th year of Usmar's death, critic Rosihan Anwar wrote, \"It seems
\nthat there are still people who preserve the Perfini principles.\"<\/p>\n
And now, at the time when Indonesian film is dying, we do not
\nknow who will come and replace him to maintain -- borrowing
\nSalim Said's terminology -- \"the aspiration to build an
\nIndonesian film industry which really reflects the countenance of
\nits own country.\"<\/p>\n
Let's wait. And hope that we are not just waiting for Godot.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/struggle-between-movement-and-genre-in-ri-films-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }