Throwing Multiple Blows: “Eksil” (The Exiles) and Indonesia’s Fight against Political Taboo

This piece builds on and responds to Max Lane’s analysis on “Eksil”, a recent popular documentary about Indonesian political exiles. The present author contends that the erosion of a deeply rooted political taboo requires not just a single cultural blow but also a sustained, multi-faceted assault.

While “Eksil” made a cultural impact against an eroding political taboo surrounding Indonesia’s 1965-66 period of violence, the documentary’s significance becomes even more pronounced when it is considered alongside earlier attempts to address similar themes. Before “Eksil” was screened, Indonesian documentary filmmaking had seen works like “Menyemai Terang dalam Kelam” (Sowing Light Within the Darkness, 2006) and “Perempuan Yang Tertuduh” (The Accused Women, 2007). Produced with support from the Netherlands Organisation for International Assistance (Novib) by Putu Oka Sukanta, these films were made to confront former president Suharto and his administration’s official history of 1965-66. Sukanta is a leftist author who was a political prisoner under Suharto’s regime because of his affiliation with LEKRA, the cultural arm of the Indonesian Communist Party. Despite their critical approach, these films drew very little attention, with “Perempuan Yang Tertuduh” reaching only 26,000 views and “Menyemai Terang dalam Kelam” even fewer.

In contrast, “Eksil” attracted around 60,000 viewers, which suggests that it has made a breakthrough; viewership numbers imply a moment of significant cultural penetration. However, when compared to other (commercial) films screened during the same period that effortlessly reached millions, the limited success of “Eksil” stresses a critical point. Regardless of the different film distribution modalities and limitations, these numbers are indicative of the difficulty of drawing in large Indonesian audiences to watch narratives that diverge from mainstream historical accounts.

Moreover, the struggle for documentaries to secure screen time in mainstream cinemas is a significant obstacle. The lack of accessibility hampers viewers in regions like Samarinda, East Kalimantan, where such documentaries can serve as a catalyst for discussions and reflection. “Eksil”’s director, Lola Amaria, has openly discussed the hurdles she faced in arranging cinema screenings. Despite its being designed for a cinematic experience, Amaria and “Eksil” grappled with the reality that documentaries are often labelled in Indonesia as “alternative” cinema. This, alongside unfavourable market practices such as limited monetisation, usually results in documentaries being considered unsuitable for cinema distribution or commercial release.

To make do with limited screen time and the film industry’s apparent disinterest, Amaria had to strategise to ensure her documentary reached its audience. She chose a Digital Cinema Package (CDP) format, where interested viewers must contact the director to facilitate a screening after they have independently arranged a room rental in a local cinema. This allowed audiences to experience “Eksil” in a cinematic setting but it also speaks volumes about the barriers that the film faced in navigating distribution routes.

The above is not a critique of “Eksil”’s impact but rather a call to acknowledge the limitations and complications that still exist in reaching broader Indonesian audiences with narratives that confront political taboos, particularly the violence and events of 1965-66. “Eksil”’s relative success highlights the need for a sustained and multifaceted approach to cultural resistance, which includes any artistic expression or intellectual discourse challenging dominant cultural norms and power structures. The fight cannot rely on isolated successes.

The above is not a critique of “Eksil”’s impact but rather a call to acknowledge the limitations and complications that still exist in reaching broader Indonesian audiences with narratives that confront political taboos, particularly the violence and events of 1965-66.

Furthermore, the contrast in viewership numbers for “Eksil” and mainstream films shows why it is important to support different kinds of creative work with the same aim. While “Eksil” challenges traditional norms head-on, we should not disregard the earlier contributions of writers like Leila Chudori and Laksmi Pamuntjak, whose acclaimed novels Pulang (Home, 2012) and Amba: The Question of Red (2012) also tackle the 1965-66 violence in a nuanced way. Likewise, mainstream films like “Sang Penari” (The Dancer, 2011), “Surat dari Praha” (Letters from Prague, 2016), and “Gadis Kretek” (Cigarette Girl, 2023) resonated with far larger audiences while exploring similar themes.

It is true that these works have not radically challenged the dominant narrative and often even depict the 1965-66 victims in overly simplistic ways, such as being misled by Communism. Nonetheless, these works contribute to sparking curiosity and critical thinking among young Indonesians on a topic that Indonesians were once not even allowed to talk about. These mainstream portrayals, sometimes seen as a compromise, also navigate market constraints or censorship.

Our collective endeavour should be to ensure that every attempt to challenge the dominant (Suharto era’s) narrative and to re-examine the 1965-66 violence reaches as many Indonesians as possible. Particularly with Indonesian youth, engaging with one of their country’s darkest chapters in history should not be confined to a single front. After years of being presented with an arguably skewed official version of history, manipulation, and ideological brainwashing, it can be difficult for Indonesians today to know the facts of 1965-66.

Thus, embracing some cacophony, including from sources that might initially seem to amplify a weak trope, can arguably trigger a more widespread exploration of historical truths. The goal is to delve into a pivotal moment in Indonesia’s history and to throw as many cultural blows as needed to further erode the longstanding taboo surrounding that period.

2024/111