Order, a lso the Reformation. A mong these politica l f luctuations there are a lso events of the heyday of monopoly of f ilm distribution, the euphoria of freedom, the proliferation of radica lism, as well as changing trends in contemporar y popular culture. In order to secure their economic, socia l, and politica l position, most of the f ilm industr y key f ig ures tr y to adapt to the socio-politica l situation of their contemporaries. Thus, to this day, there has never been a f ilm aesthetic that can be stated as the Indonesian f ilm aesthetic. Tumultuous changes in the economic, socia l, cultura l, and politica l systems throughout Indonesia's histor y have never produced any f ilm aesthetics. Beyond the industria l producers, a similar trend has penetrated most independent f ilms, students, and communities — groups that are considered to be most instrumenta l in the reviva l of Indonesian f ilms after the Reformation. The unf inished work in the narrative, mise-en-scène, and stor y telling can easily be found in the f ilms of this group. Narrative t yranny does not work intact in these t wo groups, only its excesses. This results in their ha lf-ba ked works. Regarding Mooi Indie that placed the (physica l) landscape as the main focus, Sudjojono's aesthetic criticism aimed at the detachment of the socio-politica l context from the beautiful tropica l landscape. He proposed rea lism as an aesthetic approach. He a lso began to paint human subjects or events in an unsavor y state, as they are. The bir th Indonesia’s visua l ar t aesthetic as a discourse became widely spread and practiced. While in the side of f ilms, the aesthetic criticism is not as lively. Indonesian f ilms went through a crisis because the audience were more interested in watching Holly wood f ilms, which were considered of higher qua lit y. Producers complained about the audience’s indifference for Indonesian f ilms due to the monopoly on Holly wood f ilm distribution. Then, in 1993, Rosihan A nwar (Chairman of the Socio-Cultura l Commission of the Nationa l Film Council at that time) suggested the producers to go back to basic. In order to gain an audience, they upheld the enter taining formulas, such as comedy spiced with sex. Drama — whether the theme is comedy, horror, sex, violence, or any combination thereof — is made uncomplicated but sensationa l to be readily consumed, easy and fast for the audience to digest, in order to generate hype in the market. This is the worst version of the excesses of the narrative t yranny. In fact, this formula failed to increase audience’s enthusiasm because Indonesian f ilm production stopped completely. This leaves the audience with Holly wood f ilms to see, that is, when they are not at home to watch loca l and impor ted soap operas. Since the production of Loetoeng Kasaroeng (1926) in the D utch East Indies era, T he Long March (1950) in the early days of independence, the establishment of A kademi Sinematograf i in Ja kar ta in 1971, and the f ilm crisis in the 1990s, the search for Indonesian f ilm aesthetic has never rea lly been carried out. It seems that the back to basic recommendation is the last period of f ilm production which ref lects the Indonesian f ilm before their apparent death. There is no more room
174
