[PATCHED] Download Film Speak No Evil Sub Indo
Fran Bottella
I think, ironically, the fact that Anwar and his friends are talking about what they did and describing what they did and showing us what they did, although it's horrific, it actually tames the past. By reducing something unimaginable, unspeakable, horrible beyond description to description, to these contained words, gestures, actions, scenes. The past recedes even further. And I think that's part of what makes it surprising and unexpected when it erupts with a vengeance at the end of the film.
I'm often asked, do you forgive Anwar? And I always have said, you know it's not for me to forgive or to condemn, I'm a filmmaker. I'm trying to understand how human beings do this to each other and what are the consequences for our society? And how do we tell lies to ourselves to justify what we've done and what are the consequences of those lies? But actually maybe I also recognize that in turning empathy into a practice for many years, by turning, by forcing myself to separate at some level the humanity of a human being from his or her actions and recognizing that sometimes, even the the moral aspects of a human being can contribute to immoral behavior. For example when a killer kills and justifies what they've done to themselves, and then to maintain those justifications, they have to act on those justifications and do more immoral acts. If Anwar is asked by the army to kill again, Anwar has to do it, or had to do it because to refuse a second time would be to admit it was wrong the first time. But the further evil actions are not, may in fact be engendered by his humanity, by the fact that he knows what he did was wrong. And so that, that's one of the most painful and sort of counterintuitive things the film witnesses, but to come back from that digression, I guess realizing that the human being is separate from the, his, his or her actions, or that the humanity of a person, that there's not a bad part of a person that you can cut out like an apple, like the bad, rotten part of an apple, and that there's not bad people and good people out there, to realize all of that I guess is to forgive somehow.
It is actually to say, wait, there's someone there, there's a humanity there maybe that we don't expect that bears forgiveness. And I'm not, I'm not a Jesus figure. But at the end of the film, when Anwar's humanity erupts violently on the scene, I don't think it's a catharsis for Anwar at all. It's not a redemption for Anwar at all. In fact it is, it is the sign that he's broken, that he's destroyed himself by what he's done. He will be stuck with that humanity and with that guilt for the rest of his life. How much easier his life would be if he didn't have that humanity. It may be a catharsis for the viewer that we are relieved to discover that in a human being who's done even the most inhuman things there remains this residue of humanity that's resistant, to that evil and knows what he has done is wrong.
Joshua Oppenheimer: The Act of Killing is really a film about the consequences of denial. And, and about the dangers of transforming, of filmmaking becoming increasingly escapist fantasy. Anwar talks about how escapist fantasies enabled him to kill and live with killing as an individual. Public service broadcasting, PBS is one of the few spaces that we have in a democracy and in the United States which we must defend and fight for and protect, to actually address our most serious problems. Because we have no chance of overcoming those problems if we're simply escaping from them. It's a space for reflection and a space for looking at who we are as individuals and as a society, so that we can move forward positively and overcome our problems. When The Act of Killing came out in the United States, theatrically, I was really heartened by viewers all over the country, after the film saying, how does this have to do with me? Where are we in this? What did we do to support this genocide? They read at the beginning of the film that the United States did support the genocide. They want to know. People want to know. And showing the film on PBS in one of the most important spaces that a democracy can have for speaking to its citizens, for speaking to each other about what we are as a people is a way of taking that necessary process of self-reflection that this film has encouraged people to do all over the world, but particularly in America. It's a way of taking that process to a whole new level and it's so important.
As often as they have to judge the moral aspect of a cinema programme, they should attentively revise within themselves those directives already many times given by Us, as occasion offered; and particularly when We spoke of the "ideal film", of the points which concern religion, and at the same time of representation of evil deeds: it should never ignore or be opposed to human dignity, to the modesty of the home surroundings, to holiness of life, to the Church of Jesus Christ, to human and civil types of association.
But if they have clearly and publicly indicated which films can be seen by all, by the young, by adults; and those, on the other hand, which are a moral danger to the spectators; and finally, those which are entirely bad and harmful, then each will be able to attend those films only, from which "they will come out with minds happier, freer and better";39 and they will be able to avoid those which can be harmful to them, and doubly so, of course, when they will have been a means of gain for traffickers in evil things, and given bad example to others.
We are well aware of the magnitude of the difficulties which today confront those engaged in the Motion Picture industry because of - in addition to other considerations - the great increase in the use of television. Yet, even when confronted by these difficult circumstances, they must remember that they are forbidden in conscience to present film programmes which are contrary to the Faith and sound morals, or to enter into contracts by which they are forced to present shows of this kind. But since in many countries, men engaged in this industry have bound themselves not to exhibit, for any consideration, film programmes which might be harmful or evil, We trust that the excellent initiative will spread to all parts of the world, and that no catholic in cinema management will hesitate to follow such sane and salutary proposals.
The counsel which We have given to theatre managers We wish to apply also to the distributors who, since they sometimes contribute financially to the making of the actual films, have obviously a greater opportunity and, consequently, are bound by a more serious obligation, of giving their support to reputable films. For distribution cannot be in any sense reckoned as a technical function of the business, since films - as We have often stated - are not only to be regarded as articles for sale, but also, and this is more important, to be considered as food for the mind and, as it were, a means of spiritual and moral training for the ordinary people. So distributors and hirers share to the same degree in merit and responsibility according as something good or evil results from the screen.
Web Comics
- In Chasing the Sunset, speaking the name of the evil wizard Malvenicus causes lightning and a crack of [Kra-ka-tow!] thunder. Just like that. Malvenicus [kra-ka-tow!], as it turns out, is not all that evil; he just put an enchantment on his own name back when he was younger because he thought it would be funny.
- In El Goonish Shive, the Demonic Duck can be summoned by pointing somewhere and saying "Hey, is that a demonic duck of some sort?"
- In Goblins, the "Guide within the Well of Darkness" appears whenever someone says his name and answers a yes/no question. The catch? At the fourth summoning, he kills everyone. Incidentally, his name is Noe. Pronounced as "no". K'seliss invokes this trope and rips Noe's throat out right as he appears. It's just as cool as it sounds.
- In The Order of the Stick, saying "mind flayer" or "illithid" will bring down copyright lawyers upon the speaker. Actually, pointing out any copyrighted material can do this, as Vaarsuvius realizes to their advantage when confronting a (supposedly good-aligned) drow wizard armed with two swords.
- Don't say Ironman in Austin, TX as shown why in roosterteeth's webcomics, Michael "Burnie" Burns will be groundpounded.
- In User Friendly, Sid deals with an annoying intern by tricking him into saying "Hastur" three times. And Stef manages to avoid being shredded by an angry Indian god by calling upon Hastur and letting the two duke it out. In another strip, the name is only spoken twice, but he still heard it since he happened to be in the next room.
- Wondermark's strip from 19 September 2014 features a lady complaining about sea lions to her husband, only for one to show up and pursue the couple with a string of outwardly polite questions about what problem they have with sea lions. This gave rise to the term "sealioning" to describe that sort of harassment.
- xkcd:
- In "Two Mirrors", Megan summons Bloody Mary by calling her name three times. Between two mirrors, facing each other.
- In "Parity Conservation", Cueball summons Bloody Mary for the more serious purpose of co-authoring a paper with her.
- "The True Name of the Bear references the old superstition that saying the true name of a bear will summon it, which is why the original English word for it was abandoned in favor of the present one. When Gretchen McCulloch is asked about this, she hazards a guess as to what the original word was... and is promptly proven right. Cue Oh, Crap! moment...