Idealism versus Commercialism in Indonesian Cinema: A Neverending Battle?[1]
By Ekky Imanjaya
Editor of Rumahfilm.org, Jakarta

Content:

“There is no dichotomy between art films and commercial films”, prominent Indonesian producer Mira Lesmana once told me in an interview. “There are only good films and bad films”, she continued. On the other hand, from the very beginning of film industry in Indonesia, the practices and polarization of idealistic filmmakers and commercial filmmakers become stronger and deeper. Discussions on the struggle between both groups seem to occur again and again, and I believe it still happens recently. Can both parties negotiate and unite?

Indeed, notable film critic Salim Said writes that there are two groups of filmmakers, adopted from Andrew Tudor’s theory of genre and movement. The first group is the commercial filmmakers who make movies for commercial gain. The second group is the idealistic filmmakers who make films by desire for self expression and want to portray the actual face of Indonesian on screen (Said 1991: 6), and the pioneer is Usmar Ismail, known as The Father of Indonesian Cinema. Said complains that most Indonesian films are far away from their idealistic function: to show “the Indonesian face”. In such films, there is nothing Indonesian on screen. The spectators cannot feel the representation of Indonesian people or Indonesian situation on screen. He quotes former Director General of Radio, Television and films of Indonesian Government Umar Khayam: even if the spectators see Indonesian films as merchant of dreams, it is not Indonesian dreams (Said 1991: 4). And this phenomenon is the result of the domination of commercial filmmakers, the ones who treat films as merchandise and subject the directors in general to the impulses of the financial backers; while the directors, as the artists, should be the decisive element in film production (Said 1991: 10).

For Said, since the beginning of filmmaking in Indonesia until the publication of his book, Indonesian films failed to represent the realities of Indonesian life (Said 1991: 3). It is his belief that most of the films are, so obviously, “…crude imitations of imported movies that bear little or no relation to Indonesian social norms or living conditions” (Said 1991: 5). And he blames the commercial group of filmmakers for this phenomenon.

According to Said, commercial filmmakers produce films as “merchants of dreams” (Said 1991: 3). They use the formula: bind the films with sex, wealth, violence and exaggerated sadness. Pioneers in this group were the Chinese traders. Their film productions focus on quantity, not quality. Said writes:

When movies are treated as merchandise the determining power in the production process is in the hands of capital owners. Directors, who as artists should be the decisive element, are generally subject to the impulses of the financial backers... how can we expect quality movies from such subordinated directors?” (Said 1991: 10-11).

Most films only show dreams, wishes or obsessions, instead of representing what the filmmakers think and feel of the reality (Said 1991: 121). In short, most of the films are unrealistic and have failed to picture the social problems of Indonesian people. Most film critics, scholars, and journalists, such as Karl Heider and Krishna Sen, agree with Said.

However, in 1990, Said shows optimism:

Even though Usmar Ismail is dead, the dream of making films that deal with Indonesian problems and issues has not yet completely died in the hearts of other filmmakers. To realize that dream, however, will be an uphill fight because the producers of Indonesian films, whether they be “indigenous” (pribumi?)or “non indigenous” (non-pribumi?), are businessmen who are accustomed to view film only in terms of the potential for commercial gain (Said 1991: 121).

This article will show that the dualism paradigm is still relevant and significant to be discussed today. As Said underlines, the history of Indonesian cinema can show a clear polarization between people who make films for commercial purpose only, and people who make movies for idealistic reasons (Said 1991: 102). Below is an overview of the history of Indonesian cinema as related to the struggle of the idealistic group of filmmakers, focusing on the representation of social issues and/or Jakarta city and films with realism approach in general. The discussion below will elaborate both sides: the birth of both parties, their struggles and battles again each other, the developments, the achievements, and recent progresses. And I also try to illuminate some trials to unite both sides of filmmaking.

I divide the time range into periods based on the important events happening in the years such as the first time cinema was introduced in Indonesia (early 1990s), the Japanese Occupation (1942-1945), the declaration of Indonesian’s Independence and its early years (1945-1956), the Old Order Regime and the conflicts of politics polarization (communism, Islam, nationalism, etc.) (1956-1965), the New Order Regime (1966-1998) and the Reform era (1998-present). The events would, directly or indirectly, influence the filmmaking activities in Indonesia. And I will elaborate deeper the post-Reform era, focusing on Garin Nugroho as senior filmmaker and Riri Riza as younger filmmaker.

[1]The article is a modification from Chapter II of Ekky’s Master thesis titled “The Backdoors of Jakarta: The representation of Jakarta and its social issues in post-Reform Indonesian Cinema”.