Indonesian movies remain stuck in thematic mire

By A.A. Navis

JAKARTA (JP): The late Usmar Ismail, one of Indonesia's foremost directors, decried the melodramatic and violent themes of Indonesian films in an article in the early 1950s. It is a sad reality that his criticisms are still pertinent to the film industry today.

Writing in the bimonthly Konfrontasi 1/1954, Umar complained "... films in Indonesia today are heavily infested with romantic elements, tear-jerking tragedies, overt sentimentality, brutal, horrid violence, and mysterious superstitions."

In the article Sari Soal Dalam Film Indonesia (The True Problem of Indonesian Films), Umar described the films as calculated to tug at the simplest human emotions, and cited their plot similarities with cinematic vehicles from other countries in the region.

"Today's film viewers favor the "Assepoestar theme," he wrote. "The essence is that a poor man or woman is oppressed by powerful, rich people, but he or she returns the evil with kindness.... Malayan, Philippine and Indian films which are invading the market do not differ much from the Indonesian version. Philippine films mainly focus on mystical tales, magic and superstition; Malayan films have great appeal to the lower instincts of viewers, with themes which are overly sentimental and generously specked with singing. Indian films, on the other hand, make use of both elements, albeit in more spectacular ways."

Usmar said serious films featuring complex characterizations of people with weaknesses and strengths, flaws and scruples, failed to attract audiences. He commended Darah dan Doa (Blood and Prayers) and Antara Langit dan Bumi (Between Heaven and Earth), both written by Armijn Pane, as exceptionally crafted films, but wrote they were unpopular among the average moviegoer with little or no education.

Usmar believed there were two obstructions to progress. First, the intellectual level of the audience had not changed since the colonial period. Second, there was the blanket perspective of narrow-minded members of the censorship board combined with intervention of military parties, who balked at being confronted with their shortcomings on film.

Twenty years after Usmar's article, several notable films were made by directors, including Syumanjaya and Teguh Karya. Syumanjaya presented a tale of a poor but noble teacher in Si Mamad, and Teguh's works included 1828, an epic exploration of Dutch colonialism. Both received the prestigious Citra awards, the local film industry's equivalent of the Academy Awards, but they attracted few viewers.

Indonesians flocked instead to Benyamin Tarzan Kota (Benyamin, the City Tarzan), featuring the antics of the famous Indonesian comic, or Mandarin action films dubbed Cina mengamuk (Chinese running amok). This preference for vulgar humor and violence continued despite the fact that many more Indonesians had graduated from university than when Usmar wrote his analysis.

Today, despite improved economic conditions and advanced education in Indonesia, the themes which interest most Indonesians remain virtually the same as in the 1950s and 1970s.

Witness the popularity of steamy Latin American soap operas (telenovellas), and Hong Kong or Mandarin fantasy films with people who can fly or breathe fire from their mouths. Not to mention the Indian films in which the actors break into song and dance at regular intervals, either in sadness or in merriment.

Indonesian films have to copy these foreign films to be successful. This has lead to the slew of imitations of the melodramatic soap operas, heroic tales featuring martial arts, hard-boiled American crime stories, one-dimensional comedies or superstitious tales.

Quality films like Garin Nugroho's Bulan Tertusuk Ilalang (And the Moon Dances) or Eros Djarot's Tjoet Nyak Din cannot earn a showing at mainstream movie theaters despite awards from several international film festivals. Historical or new war pictures depicting flawless heroes, as in Tuanku Tambusai (My Master Tambusai), or Si Pincang (The Cripple), draw few viewers compared with silly tales such as Naga Bonar.

Entertaining

Film buffs believe the average Indonesian filmgoer is little different from his counterparts in other developing countries.

Those oppressed by the problems and difficulties of daily life are unlikely to be attracted to tales of human sorrow or emotionally taxing film dramas. They crave entertainment, films that offer escape, and heroism in which good conquers evil.

The leading man should be handsome, strong, mighty and muscular. Needless to say, the women are forever beautiful, good and determined. The stories unfold in a luscious park or against some beautiful backdrop, filmed in mansions similar to those found in Pondok Indah. Poor, unattractive people who live in humble houses, as depicted in Si Mamad, have no place in these scenarios.

But the yearning for escape and tales of superhuman heroes, just like Flash Gordon 60 years ago, is still found among audiences in developed countries. This has found its release in versions like Star Trek, or Superman. Frightening films of the supernatural like Dracula have been replaced by Aliens. These pictures draw a correlation between viewers in developing and developed countries, but also show their differences.

Film viewers in developed countries are averse to sob stories. Sad tales only agitate their emotions. Beside entertaining films, serious stories are still enjoyed. Films share the same principle as a novel; they are in essence a work of fiction. Films offer fantasy visuals, and books do likewise through literal depictions.

Like books, some films carry an entertaining tone, and others are of a literary trend. Fiction, and entertaining stories, invariably become best sellers in developed countries, but literature also draws a wide readership. And this applies to films as well.

In developing countries like Indonesia, literature still holds little appeal to the public. It is not unlike the lack of interest in Si Mamad or Bulan Tertusuk Ilalang as serious film vehicles. Films are thus reduced to unartistic productions in an industry that aims to make money and exploits the base tastes of viewers. It does not aspire to refine reason, or raise the human intellect.

Should we stop this or leave it be? The answer to this depends on who is in a stronger position in this country -- scholars and intellectuals, or industrialists and businesspeople.