Film expert sees room for all in RI cinema

Film expert sees room for all in RI cinema

Hera Diani, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

It goes without saying that quantity does not always represent
quality. Despite a growing number of local films entering movie
houses, most come up short in terms of story and technical
skills.

Recent works like Untukmu (For You) and Cinta 24 Karat (24-
Carat Love) suffer from absurd plots and poor camera work,
leaving some worried that the declared "revival" in local film's
fortunes will be over as soon as it began as disappointed viewers
are turned off for good.

C.Q. "Katinka" van Heeren, a Ph.D. candidate from the
University of Leiden, who has been doing research on contemporary
Indonesian cinema, is not as pessimistic.

Studying Javanese literature at the university's graduate
school, she took her master's on the same campus, with her thesis
comparing two Indonesian films: 1997's Kuldesak (Cul-de-sac) and
1998's Sri.

"The theme was cultural detraditionalization and cultural
retraditionalization. I was interested because Sri was about old
Javanese culture, which is nothing new for me, while Kuldesak
offered something different, something really new," she told The
Jakarta Post recently in fluent Bahasa Indonesia.

The 30 year old's doctoral thesis is focused on the discourse
and space of Indonesian films in the transitional period after
president Soeharto stepped down in 1998.

The following is an excerpt of the interview in which she
discussed her observations.

The Jakarta Post: Tell me about your Ph.D. thesis?

Katinka: I'm not only focusing on big screen films, but also
those... no, not underground, because it's not really underground
in the real sense. It's just the films that can't find a way into
public cinemas or to gain exposure by the media. Those films just
haven't got the space in the mainstream media.

From Kuldesak up to now, how do you see the Indonesian film
scene?

I see there have been different spaces, and different films.
Some films appear in public movie theaters, others are screened
in some sort of alternative cinema, although it's not really an
alternative cinemas, because sometimes it's just somebody's
house. But it seems there are venues to screen different kinds of
films.

I found the films are highly varied. Many of them are exciting
and thought-provoking. I really enjoyed (teen flick) Ada Apa
Dengan Cinta? (What's Up With Cinta?), not so thought-provoking
but very entertaining. Eliana Eliana is very good. I really like
Pasir Berbisik, Pachinko.

Aside from the variety, what about the quality of the films?

I think it's difficult to judge because that's very personal.
Of course, anything from Miles Production (which produced Ada
Apa) is usually of high quality.

I heard complaints that many films are not very interesting,
or the quality is declining. But I think if there's an audience
there must be quality, because there are people who like to watch
them.

Some say the weakness is in the script. What do you think?

Perhaps. But sometimes the script is not that important.
Because there are films made without a tight script but that are
still interesting. The script is important, but not for every
film.

Technically, I'm amazed by recent Indonesian films, because
there are some groups who can afford to produce a 35mm film. But
many others, working on a shoestring budget, dare to make a movie
with digital video (DV) camera -- and still can come out with
good films.

But as I mentioned earlier, quality is arguable because there
are films with great images but not very good story, and vice
versa. Personally, quality for me is when it touches me
emotionally.

Certainly, local films that make it into public cinemas are
still very few.

That's not a problem, because there are other venues. The
problem is the exposure, so that people know they can watch films
in other places (aside from movie theaters).

There's also criticism from local filmmakers for the inability
to pick a simple, down to earth theme that people can relate to.

I don't agree with that. There are other films with simple
themes but touching, like (short film) Ketok (Knock) from Tintin
Wulia. But it's not being screened in public movie theaters,
which is difficult for a short film like that.

Maybe the mainstream public is different, but I don't really
believe in that, either. Maybe the director who aims at
mainstream public thinks people would love a certain kind of
film. Which is why there are sequels, or follow-ons.

The problem is sometimes directors want to get into people's
heads. But that doesn't always work. On the other hand, Eliana
Eliana is very good, but it hardly found an audience.

Maybe we have to go back to the concept of space. Perhaps the
cinema is too spacious for an audience who likes that kind of
film. Maybe the film will find more of an audience in other
(smaller) venues.

You mentioned Ketok and other "underground" films -- Are you
saying the movement of local films outside the mainstream is more
exciting?

I guess it's the same. Because mainstream films are varied in
theme, while many "underground" films from college students are
similar.

Local filmmakers seem to be really fond of DV, which enabled
them to produce films on a shoestring budget. But the quality
seems to be undermined, which many are afraid will scare the
audience away. What do you think?

I've heard about that. However, people will watch the film if
they want to. Sometimes I heard about damaging the market, but
what market? Because there are people who don't want to watch a
film if it's made on DV. But the rest who don't have a problem
with that will watch it.

I never believe in sweeping generalizations, that people will
no longer watch another (local) film once they watch a bad one. I
don't believe that. I think there's room for all of the films,
and they will always exist.

So, what can be concluded from Indonesian films in this
transitional period?

I can't conclude anything. I can only see the wide variation,
the bravery, the courage... I admire the spirit of those who
couldn't find ways into the mainstream but still looked for other
alternatives.

I come from a country where everything is easy, where looking
for funds is easy. What I like from my research is that I see
people here are very positive and willing to struggle.

Foreign countries often receive negative news about Indonesia,
about which direction this country is going in. I'm glad I can
see beyond that. Well, maybe that's the conclusion -- that
Indonesians and Indonesian films are very enthusiastic.

What is needed to be done to revive the industry?

I guess that's another discourse, revival. Because the
question is, is it dead anyway? There have always been films
being produced. If we look at participation in foreign film
festivals, there have always been Indonesian films, even if it's
only one or two films. But that's about the same number of Dutch
directors who participate in foreign film festivals too.

Maybe it is reviving in the sense of the number of films that
are being screened in the public movie theaters, or reviving the
finances. But that means we're talking about the industry, about
business. And that's another story.

So, you're saying that people shouldn't be worried in seeing
the development of the local film scene?

Yes, because it has great prospects. Maybe if we talk too much
about how the local film scene is in the doldrums, and that it
has to revive, people will believe it. The more important thing
is just see it from the way it is. If we do that, there are
actually many quality and varied films.

Local filmmakers often complain about lack of government
support. What do you think?

... Maybe the government can give support by providing spaces
for alternative cinemas, or supporting local festivals or small
forums that have already exist. That's rather than conducting a
seminar to discuss this problem, that's lip service....

If the government has the financial support, perhaps it can
help the H. Usmar Ismail Film Center with its library. That's
very crucial. It's odd that I have to look for data on Indonesian
films in Leiden, instead of finding it here.

With filmmakers making movies for themselves, isn't it
alienating the audience?

No. There's always an audience. Like (art house filmmakers)
Garin Nugroho, or Arya Kusumadewa. Their films were not screened
in movie theaters, but when they were screened in universities,
people packed the room. People actually are willing to see their
films.

Pasir Berbisik lacks an audience, but it earned awards in some
film festivals. That doesn't mean it's what people call a
"festival film", but there is another type of audience.

Once again, I'm suggesting an alternative cinema. A smaller
one, but there's an audience. I believe in a certain audience,
certain space...