The Year of Living Dangerously (1982)
Peter Weir
Sher Khan (author)
Film Criticism and Assessment of Critical Uptake
Peter Weir’s romantic thriller, The Year of Living Dangerously (1982), has an interesting mixture of drama and romance in the midst of Third World political turmoil. It is a gripping film that effectively portrays the beauty and misery of Indonesia during 1965. The film also convincingly recreates the atmosphere and events leading up the failed communist coup in Indonesia during the summer of 1965. Weir’s brilliant incorporation of the characteristics of ‘Art’, ‘mundane’ and ‘Other’ cinemas (O’ Regan, 1996) into this film, makes it one of the better Australian films made during the early eighties and also his first financially successful film.
The film which was based on C.J. Koch’s novel of the same title, revolves around the experiences of an Australian wire-service journalist, Guy Hamilton (Mel Gibson) who is adamant about making a name for himself on his first overseas posting to Indonesia. Here in the midst of political intrigue and turmoil, he is befriended by news cameraman Billy Kwan (Linda Hunt) a Chinese-Australian dwarf who has connections in high places. It is through him, that Guy is able to gain access to the rebel leaders and insights into the grim realities of Jakarta, which he dutifully reports to the world. It is also Billy, who introduces him to Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver), a British Embassy attache, whom he subsequently falls for. Guy is then put in a moral and ethical dilemma when Jill gives him classified information on the arrival of shipload of arms into the country for the communists. He chooses to reveal the information after getting independent verification of the still secret news, thus endangering the lives of Jill, Billy and all the remaining Western nationals. (Internet Movie Database).
The stylish manner in which this film was shot not only builds up the tension and depression, it also makes the film look somewhat ‘arty’. The night scenes, especially the street/slum scenes are extremely dark, emphasizing the nightmarish lives the Indonesians lead. Their sad faces appear to be even sadder because of the shadowy effects created as a result of low key lighting. These despairing night scenes not only adds on to the eerie mood of the film but they also seem to appear ‘realistic’. These scenes seem to look like scenes from a newsreel or documentary and at times typical scenes often seen in ‘Other’ or ‘Third’ cinema. Every night scene is also carefully and artistically lit that it adds this film noirish touch to the film. The brilliant use of the camera as well as the haunting soundtrack, effectively evokes "an eerie mood where violence can suddenly, inexplicably erupt" (Murray, 1994, p97).
It also is interesting to note that the film attempted to link the various themes symbolically with reflexive images of Indonesian shadow puppetry. Although critics like Hal Erickson argue that Weir was only partly successful in his attempts, I however feel otherwise. Some of the scenes in the film look like scenes from a ‘wayang kulit’ or shadow puppetry, where the shadows or reflection of a particular character is seen from either a glass panel (the broadcast studio), rearview mirror or a blank white screen (the view of Guy’s office from the top of the staircase). The manner in which these scenes were shot not only exemplifies Russell Boyd’s innovative cinematography but it also allows the viewer to see things from another angle. Also, just like in the ‘wayang’, the manner in which the day and night scenes, the peaceful and chaotic scenes in the film are juxtaposed, appear to be ‘in constant endless balance’.
One of the main themes of the film, which is the story of the relationship between Guy, Jill and Billy, is somewhat symbolically link to an Indonesian puppet play about the adventures of a prince. Guy, Jill and Billy are the symbolic representation of the traditional characters in that Indonesian shadow puppet play. Guy represents the prince, Jill the princess and Billy the dwarf. They also take on the certain distinctive attributes of the characters they symbolically represent. Guy is the hero but he ‘can be fickle and selfish’ while Jill is ‘noble, proud but headstrong’. However, Billy’s character is not as simplistic when as the dwarf’s whose main function in the play ‘is to serve the prince’. He does serve Guy by helping the latter get the necessary information on Indonesia’s social and political problems, but like Krishna in the play he also manipulates the latter.
Then there is the part where Indonesia’s political situation is said to be similar to that of the ‘wayang’ where the ‘right is always in constant struggle with the left’. In the ‘wayang’, the one person that brings stability to the play is the puppet master who effectively controls both his left and right puppets. Billy likens Sukarno to the high priest or the puppet master, because of his ability to rule the country, by carefully controlling the right as well as the left in a delicate balance. He idol worships Sukarno so much that he tries emulate his idol. This he does by trying to be the puppet master "balancing his puppets: Guy, Jill and whoever else is around" (Gibson, 1983, p16). Like his idol, Sukarno – the great puppet master, Billy ultimately fails to control his puppets in a delicate balance and is subsequently destroyed by his own emotional shortcomings.
This film has been criticized for manifesting "the clash of cultures between the Indonesians and the interloping White Europeans" (Nichols, 1995). The film has also been said to have created and highlighted an ‘us and them’ dichotomy, as one of the central themes of the story. To a large extent these criticisms are true, and there are evidences in the film, of these differences in culture and the tension it creates. Throughout the film, the Europeans appear to be enjoying themselves by dining, wining, dancing and whoring at the expense of the locals. In some instances, the European appear to have no respect to the local custom or culture and take advantage of the locals for their own amusement. One scene that best exemplifies this point is when one of the journalists, Curtis pays a local dwarf to sing for them in the pub. The local dwarf was probably singing because he needs the money to feed himself, however to Curtis and his mates (minus Guy and Billy) the dwarf probably appeared to them as a freak or ‘Other’ and therefore a good source of entertainment for them. These are probably the typical responses of Europeans towards Indonesians, whom they consider "as endlessly accessible objects of desire and destruction" (Perera, !993, p17). Therefore, Weir should be commended rather than criticized for manifesting these cultural differences in his film. The reason why I feel that he should be commended is because, these clash of cultures and the ‘us and them’ dichotomy works very well within the context of the film and keeps the narrative going.
Critics, both at the time of the film’s release and subsequently, argue that the film looks at Indonesia’s political and social issues during the summer of 1965, only from a Western perspective (O’Regan, 1996). This criticism clearly supports Berry’s (1994, p35) argument that the purpose of Asia and Asians in Australian cinema, is "as a fetishized other against which Australian constructs that identity [as an imagined community]". Although I do agree with them on this point, I also feel that there were attempts made in the film to see the ‘Other’ side of the story. There were instances in the film, where the Indonesians especially Kumar, comment on the political and social turmoil of their country. Kumar’s comments on Sukarno’s dictatorship and his justification of his involvement with the PKI, is definitely a refreshing change in a film seen almost entirely from a western perspective. Although these attempts may not appear to be that significant, the very fact that it did try to incorporate the locals’ perspective somewhat redeems the film.
A film like The Year of Living Dangerously, had all the makings of a box-office hit. The film was based on C.J. Koch’s award-novel and it had a critically acclaimed director, Peter Weir who had directed a number of films including the highly acclaimed Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) and Gallipoli (1981).The other production crew working on this film was also the same people Weir had previously worked with in his earlier films. These included Russell Boyd (cinematographer), Jim McElroy(producer) Maurice Jarre (composer), Terry Ryan (costumes), Judy Lovell (makeup), William Anderson (editor), Herbert Pinter and Wendy Stites (production designers). The film also boasts one of Australia rising stars, Mel Gibson and the highly acclaimed American actress Sigourney Weaver. The film was a financed by the Australian Film Commission and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer films (MGM), the first such American-Australian financial collaboration (Erickson, 1993). Weir started filming almost immediately after the release of Gallipoli. The film was made for about A$6 million and shot entirely on location in the Philippines (All Movie Guide). It was released officially somewhere at the end of 1982 in Australia and early 1983 in the U.S. It became the most financially successful Australian film of its time as it went on to make US$8.6 million in the U.S. box office and A$2.296 in the domestic market (Nichols, 1995). The reason for its commercial success was somewhat due to its American-Australian collaboration.
This film was also Peter Weir’s first commercially successful film. Although Picnic at Hanging and Gallipoli were critically acclaimed films, which rewrote domestic box office records, they did not have the international appeal of The Year of Living Dangerously. At times, The Year does seem to look like an American production and this perhaps why it was so successful. Unlike Picnic and Gallipoli, which had somewhat of an Australian content and accent in them, The Year’s only claim to Australianness is the fact that the main protagonist is an Australian journalist. By downplaying the Australian content and concentrating on art and entertainment in this film, Weir makes the film appealing to an international audience, especially the Americans. Weir combines the different elements of national cinema and make it look like a Hollywood festival film, and it comes as no surprise that this film was his Hollywood ‘calling card’. After making this film, he went on to Hollywood and had an illustrious career making films like Witness (1984), The Mosquito Coast (1986) and the critically acclaimed Dead Poets’ Society (1988).
Besides being the director’s Hollywood ‘calling card’, this film also either kick started or firmly established the careers and reputation of some its leading actors. Mel Gibson was already quite well known in both the Australian and American film milieu prior to his work in this film. This was partly due to his performances in cult favourites like Mad Max (1979), Mad Max 2 (1981) and the highly acclaimed Gallipoli (1981). However, his performances in this film clearly established the fact that his acting abilities are not just limited to playing the ‘typical Aussie Battler" and that he does have a range of acting skills. The film also establishes his leading man qualities and screen presence, which ultimately led to a Hollywood acting and directing career and a sex symbol status. Sigourney Weaver was also well known in the American film milieu for her highly acclaimed performances in Annie Hall (1977) and Alien (1979). Her performances in this film, clearly shows that she can ‘heat things up’ and play a romantic lead convincingly despite her physique, a role she never really had the chance to play again in any of her subsequent films. The Year would perhaps be best remembered for Linda Hunt’s brilliant and show stealing portrayal of Billy Kwan, for which she won a handful of awards, including the Oscar. Her only other performance prior to this role of a lifetime was in the little known Popeye (1980). Her performances in this film made the American film milieu sit up and take notice of her, and this kick started her Hollywood career, which sadly was not as illustrious as her two co-stars were.
The Year of Living Dangerously has been said to be an Australian film catering specifically for the U.S. and international market. It is not the stereotypical ‘ocker’ films of the seventies. Neither is the film, one with a high Australian content or film shot entirely on location in Australia. The film is unique in a sense because it the main issue in the film is not about whether Guy represents the typical Aussie male, instead it was his experiences in a toppling Third World regime. The financial and critical success of this film in both the domestic and international market (namely the U.S.), clearly proves the critics point that the only way Australians film would succeed in the local and international arena is by emulating the Americans. In other words, the critics are saying that the film is a typical product of a ‘second cinema’- a term that mainstream Australian films are categorized under (O’Regan, 1996). Although the film incorporates the various elements of a national cinema, it however is still structured along the lines of Hollywood films. This is the path, most Australian directors are taking, and as a result, most Australian films are seen as somewhat similar yet inferior to Hollywood films.
This film is perhaps one of the luckier Australian national films that has financially succeeded in the local as well as being able to penetrate into the American market. This is largely due to its collaboration with MGM who financed and distributed the film both locally and in the U.S. However not all Australian films are as fortunate as this film was. Most Australian producers operating within Australia’s medium sized English language cinema, find it difficult to exhibit and distribute their products both locally and internationally. This is largely due fact that Australian films do not dominate its own domestic markets, which have been traditionally dominated by Hollywood films (O’Regan, 1996). Australia’s medium sized English language markets do not provide the environment or the necessary opportunities for the Australian films to compete with the Hollywood ones on an equal basis. So, for a film like The Year of Living Dangerously, to have succeeded in an environment like this, is a big achievement by itself.
The Year of Living Dangerously is one of those milestone films that set a good example for the rest to emulate. Although it may not be the best Australian film ever made, it was perhaps one of the very rare Australian films, "which successfully combines real-life political intrigue with solid entertainment" (Erickson, 1993). Peter Weir’s penchant for recreating true to life details, Russell Boyd’s creative camerawork, Gibson, Weaver and Hunt’s exceptional performances in this film, makes The Year of Living Dangerously "an engaging cinematic experience" (Murray, 1994, p97).
Benner, R. (1995) The Year of Living Dangerously - http://us.imdb.com/Reviews/40/4071
Berry, C. (1994) A Bit on the side: East-West Topographies of Desire Sydney: EMPress.
Erickson, H. (1993) in All Movie Guide - http://205.186.189.2/cgi-win/avg.exe
Gibson, M. (1993) in "Margaret Smith’s interview with Mel Gibson" in Cinema Papers p.13-17 Mar 1983
Internet Movie Database – http://us.imdb.com/Title?Year+of+living+Dangerously+The+(1983)
Murray, S. (1994) "Australian cinema in the 1970s and 1980s" in Australian Cinema ed. Scott Murray, Australia: Allen &Unwin.
Nichols, D. (1995) in Crazy Dave’s Peter Weir Page – http://www10.pair.com/crazydv/weir/weir1.html
O’ Regan, T. (1996) Australian National Cinema London: Routledge.
Perera, S. (1994) "Representation Wars: Malaysia, Embassy, and Australia’s Corps Diplomatique" in Australian Cultural Studies: A Reader ed. John Frow & Meaghan Morris, Australia: Allen & Unwin.