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...