Review Film Senyap -The Look Of Silence

Summary

The provided transcript consists of multiple student reviews of the documentary film *Senyap*, directed by Joshua Oppenheimer. Reviewers discuss various aspects of the film, including its management, cinematography, audio quality, and historical portrayal. Key critiques focus on the ethical concerns surrounding forced interviews, the manipulative cinematographic techniques, and audio issues such as background noise. While the film is praised for revealing historical truths about Indonesia's 1965 tragedy, it is criticized for lacking diverse perspectives and for not capturing finer details in the cinematography. Overall, the reviews present a mix of admiration and critique for the documentary’s approach to sensitive topics.

Takeaways

• 😀 The film *Senyap* by Joshua Oppenheimer has been critically reviewed by several individuals, each offering insights into its strengths and weaknesses.
• 😀 One of the key critiques involves the film's decision to keep certain individuals anonymous in the credits, raising concerns about transparency and potential hidden agendas.
• 😀 Despite the anonymity issue, the film's management is praised for its ability to convince interviewees to share critical information, which was essential for the documentary's content.
• 😀 Cinematography in *Senyap* is a point of contention, with some reviewers describing it as manipulative, especially the overuse of medium shots instead of candid or dynamic angles.
• 😀 There is a consensus that the film misses out on capturing certain important details and perspectives, which could have added depth to the historical context it aims to present.
• 😀 The audio quality of the film is noted for its strengths but also critiqued for the presence of distracting background noises, such as the sounds of vehicles and animals.
• 😀 Ethical concerns are raised, with some reviewers questioning the methods used to gather interviews, particularly the use of forceful tactics to extract information from subjects.
• 😀 The film's portrayal of the 1965 Indonesian tragedy is both praised for uncovering uncomfortable truths and critiqued for presenting a one-sided narrative, leaving out the perspectives of perpetrators and other stakeholders.
• 😀 Reviewers highlight that *Senyap* effectively unveils how the New Order regime manipulated historical narratives for decades, shaping public perceptions of the past.
• 😀 Some reviewers feel that the film could have done more to respect the privacy and consent of interviewees, especially when individuals seemed coerced into participating.
• 😀 Overall, while *Senyap* is recognized for its significant contribution to shedding light on Indonesian history, it faces criticism regarding its ethical practices, narrative focus, and technical execution.

Q & A

What is the main critique regarding the film's management?

The main critique focuses on the anonymity of some individuals involved in the film. The critics argue that viewers have the right to know who is behind the film's creation, and the obscurity of certain names suggests there may be something suspicious or unethical about it.

How does the film's approach to managing sources and their privacy come under scrutiny?

The reviewers emphasize the importance of respecting the privacy of sources. They believe that once a source no longer wishes to participate or be interviewed, the film should cease further questioning. There are concerns that the film's approach to interrogation lacks ethical boundaries, pushing the subjects too forcefully.

What role does cinematography play in the film's perceived manipulativeness?

The cinematography is considered manipulative by some reviewers, particularly for its over-reliance on medium shots and lack of candid camera work. This approach is seen as limiting the film's ability to capture more detailed or nuanced moments that could provide a deeper understanding of the events.

What specific technical issue with cinematography did some reviewers highlight?

Reviewers pointed out that the film predominantly used medium shots, which they felt didn't effectively convey the full scope of the events. They also noted that there were missed opportunities for more detailed shots that could have enhanced the storytelling.

What are the concerns regarding the representation of historical events in the film?

While the film sheds light on the historical tragedy of the 1965 G30S/PKI massacre, some critics feel that it only presents a one-sided perspective. The film is criticized for not adequately including viewpoints from the perpetrators, the public, or experts, which could have provided a more balanced portrayal.

How is the film's historical significance perceived?

The film is praised for its role in exposing historical truths about Indonesia's 1965 tragedy, specifically the role of the New Order regime in creating a narrative around the massacre. Reviewers acknowledge that the film serves as an important tool in revealing suppressed history.

What is the critique regarding the audio quality in the film?

The audio quality is criticized for being distracting at times. Background noises such as traffic and animal sounds (like crickets) are noted as detracting from the film's overall impact and clarity.

What do reviewers think about the film's ethical approach to documenting historical events?

Some reviewers argue that the film does not maintain ethical standards in its treatment of sources, particularly in how it pushes individuals to reveal painful memories. They stress the importance of transparency and consent in documentary filmmaking.

What positive aspect of the film's management was highlighted?

One positive aspect highlighted was the filmmakers' ability to effectively persuade sources to participate and share valuable information. This demonstrates good management in terms of obtaining critical details for the documentary.

What recommendations or suggestions did the critics have for the film's future work?

Critics suggest that future documentaries should ensure a more ethical approach to sourcing, with clearer transparency regarding the individuals involved. They also recommend paying closer attention to cinematographic detail, such as incorporating more candid shots and reducing background noise in the audio to avoid distractions.