In this blog post, we will analyze the structure and core message of Joshua Oppenheimer’s documentary ‘The Look of Silence’ and examine its significance.

Structural Analysis

The documentary ‘The Look of Silence’ unfolds as “Adi,” an optician, personally tracks down the perpetrators who murdered his older brother “Ramli” after 50 years to ask them about the massacre. However, this film does not simply seek to elicit emotional appeals or sympathy from the victims’ side. Instead, it approaches the audience with an attitude aimed at accurately portraying the victims’ “perspective.”
The film’s scenes can be broadly classified into four types.
First, there is the life of “Adi,” who, though he did not personally experience the massacre, was born in a victim’s home immediately after the massacre and grew up amidst its aftermath. He grew up in a politically stigmatized family, burdened by poverty and trauma caused by financial extortion and massacres perpetrated by local soldiers, yet he is not consumed by anger nor does he dream of revenge. Rather, precisely because he did not experience it firsthand, he has no hesitation in asking about the massacre and demanding answers.
Second, it features interviews with the perpetrators and their descendants, whom ‘Adi’ visits alongside him. While ‘Adi’ calmly and matter-of-factly asks the perpetrators about the events of that time, they sometimes speak proudly of the murders they committed. Their heroic narratives allow the audience to vividly witness how the perpetrators are living their lives today.
Third, the current lives of “Rohani” and “Rukun,” “Ramli’s” parents. They remember exactly how their son was brutally murdered and are enduring the reality of their son’s horrific death, the guilt that comes with it, and the fact that they must still live in the same neighborhood, coming face-to-face with the perpetrators. For them, it is not merely a matter of enduring through sheer resilience; deep-seated scars and fear remain.
Fourth, the poetic and metaphorical interludes, such as the scenes with children and silkworm cocoons. Placed at the beginning and end of the film, these scenes subtly hint at possibility or concisely depict how even the most powerless things begin to shift when confronted with change.

Adi’s Confrontation with the Perpetrators

In ‘Adi’, the protagonist seeks out the perpetrators to hear the stories of murder they still recount with pride. While scenes reminiscent of the perpetrators’ bragging and heroic tales seen in ‘The Act of Killing’ are repeated, this documentary does not merely record their words. ‘Adi’ reveals that he is a family member of a victim and witnesses their reactions firsthand. In this way, the film demonstrates that the memory of the massacre remains an ongoing reality and makes it clear that speaking out is never safe.
The perpetrators often speak proudly of their actions even in front of their families or grandchildren. In contrast, the families of survivors are forced into silence and face situations where speaking out could be treated as a crime. This contrast creates a constant sense of tension throughout the film.

Why was this film selected?

The film was released nationwide in Indonesia on December 10, 2014, World Human Rights Day. At the time, tens of thousands of Indonesians watched the film in hundreds of theaters across the country, and posters advertising the screenings were displayed. In a large theater in Medan, the screening took place in a solemn and peaceful atmosphere, and every time “Adi” attended the theater, his courage was met with a standing ovation.
However, shortly thereafter, the police and military mobilized hired thugs to intimidate theater operators and demand the cancellation of screenings, resulting in the cancellation of 25 screenings. The censorship board issued a complete ban on the film, citing the “risk of evoking sympathy for Communist Party ideology” and the claim that “the documentary lacks objectivity because the subject is the child of a Communist Party member.” In reality, however, no one in ‘Adi’s’ family was a Communist Party member, and these claims are merely a repetition of an old tactic to stigmatize survivors.
The media strongly condemned the censorship, and the National Human Rights Commission declared the decision invalid and issued a letter supporting the screenings. Young people expressed their anger on social media and elsewhere. This experience demonstrates that the documentary goes beyond merely recording the past and is directly connected to the current political reality.

The Story — Production Background and Research Process

Director Joshua Oppenheimer first visited Indonesia in 2001. While assisting with the production of a documentary on labor unions, he discovered the source of the workers’ fear. It was the fact that their parents and grandparents had been falsely accused of being pro-Communist sympathizers, imprisoned in forced labor camps, and subsequently killed by soldiers and death squads.
The perpetrators, having been granted amnesty, held key positions in parliament and local communities and wielded power, while the survivors lived in fear that the massacre could be repeated at any moment. Oppenheimer began investigating a case frequently mentioned by the workers—the case of a victim named “Ramli.”
Unlike countless other missing persons, Ramli’s case had witnesses, and because his body was dumped in a palm oil plantation near his home, the evidence of the murder was clear. His death exposed the true nature of the terror that the military regime sought to suppress as if nothing had happened.
In 2003, Oppenheimer was introduced to Ramli’s mother, Rohani; his father, Rukun; and his youngest son, Adi, who was born after the massacre. Rohani viewed Adi’s birth as if her dead son Ramli had been reborn, and Adi has lived with that burden his entire life. Since then, Adi has traveled with Oppenheimer in search of the perpetrators, demanding answers, and the camera captured this courage.

Features and Comparisons

Joshua Oppenheimer’s previous work, ‘The Act of Killing’, delved into the perpetrators’ fictional heroic narratives, the souls of the dead victims, and the perpetrators’ self-serving narratives, capturing a moment of human realization. In contrast, ‘The Look of Silence’ deals with the daily lives of the survivors’ families and the reality that they are forced to live under the watchful eyes of the perpetrators.
This documentary goes beyond merely revisiting past events to influence the ongoing social reality of the present. The film itself is connected to real-world events and continues to generate meaning through audience and social reactions. In the process, it captures the human sorrow and loss left by tragic events, as well as a fundamental witness to life and death.