THE NEGOTIATION BETWEEN QUEER SPECTATORSHIP and QUEER TEXT on RIRI RIZA’S SOE HOK GIE Negosiasi Antara Penonton Queer Dan Teks Queer Pada Soe Hok Gie Karya Riri Riza

THE NEGOTIATION BETWEEN QUEER SPECTATORSHIP AND QUEER TEXT ON RIRI RIZA’S SOE HOK GIE Negosiasi antara Penonton Queer dan Teks Queer pada Soe Hok Gie Karya Riri Riza

Maimunah

Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Airlangga, Jalan Dharmawangsa Dalam Selatan 2A, Surabaya, Telepon 031-5035676, Pos-el: [email protected]

(Makalah diterima tanggal 1 Februari 2010—Revisi tanggal 14 Mei 2010)

Abstract: The emergence of young generation filmmakers who are more confident in depicting gender and sexual issues after the Soeharto era (1998), significantly changes the construction of sexual diversity in 2003—2006 Indonesian films. One of the considerable phenomena is the personal experience and social commitment to support sexual minorities such as gay and lesbian issues. At the same time Indonesian queer communities strive to read the discourse of homosexuality in different way. Physical contact and even intimacy between persons of the same-sex, in both public and private spaces, was common practice in Indonesian cultures, and did not carry any suggestion of homoerotic desire. In this Riri Riza’s film, Soe Hok Gie, however, cinematic technique, narrative and dialogue all contribute to an eroticising of same- sex relationships that is particularly perceptible in cultures that previously regarded physical and emotional interactions between persons of the same-sex as unremarkable. This article based on Benshoff and Griffin’s (2006) theory on queer film.

Key Words: queer spectatorship, homoeriticism, Soe Hok Gie

Abstrak: Perkembangan film Indonesia setelah tumbangnya rezim Soeharto menunjukkan adanya fenomena di kalangan sutradara muda untuk mengeksplorasi tema tentang gender dan seksualitas. Isu tentang seksual minoritas seperti seksualitas gay dan lesbian adalah salah satu ciri yang cukup menonjol dalam film-film yang diproduksi setelah tahun 2003. Pada saat yang sama, penonton queer (seksualitas nonnormatif) terutama yang berasal dari komunitas queer membaca scene sebuah film terutama yang menampilkan kontak fisik dan keintiman antara orang-orang sesama jenis dengan cara yang baru. Dalam tradisi budaya Indonesia, kontak fisik dan keintiman itu tidak diterjemahkan dalam sebuah hubungan homoerotika . Pembacaan yang berbeda ditunjukkan pembaca dalam film Soe Hok Gie karya Riri Riza. Artikel ini menggunakan teori Queer Film yang dikemukakan oleh Benshoff dan Griffin (2006).

Kata-Kata Kunci: queer spectatorship, homoerotisisme, Soe Hok Gie

INTRODUCTION the rise to power of Soeharto’s New Gie is a dramatization of the life of Soe Order. Hok Gie, a student activist at the Univer- In Riri Riza’s film, Gie is represent- sity of Indonesia in the mid 1960s, who ed as an idealistic youth who constantly came to prominence through the battles for justice and truth, regardless of publication of his diary Catatan Seorang race, religion and ethnicity. In the film’s Demonstran in 1983. The diary itself is opening scene, the young Gie is a smart an intimate record of the thoughts of a and critical student at the Xin Hwa student activist in the turbulent period Elementary School who appreciates phi- between the end of the Soekarno era and losophy, literature and politics. Growing

1 up in a lower-middle class Chinese- prominent newspapers. He dreams of Indonesian family in Jakarta, Gie has a meeting up again with Han, and again great concern for justice and human enjoying the carefree times they used to rights. When Han, his close friend, spend together. The film ends with Gie’s experiences domestic abuse, Gie strives untimely death during a mountain to save him from mistreatment. Gie also climbing expedition to Mount Semeru, criticizes the unfairness and the lack of one day before his twenty-seventh integrity of his teachers both at the birthday on 16 December 1969. Strada Junior High School and Kanisius Released on 14 July 2005, Gie won College. He criticizes the corruption, awards in Indonesian and international social inequality and power abuse under film festivals, including best movie, the government of Soekarno, which actor and cinematography at the 2005 causes the poor and the oppressed to Indonesian film festival. It was also suffer. awarded the Hubert Bals Fund prize at At the time of the fall of the the Rotterdam International Film Soekarno regime in 1966 and the rise to Festival for its content and artistic value. power of Soeharto, Gie refuses to form Eric Sasono (2005) argues that Gie is an alliances with any political party, and important film since it includes continues to fight for his idealism, even communist symbols such as the hammer as some of his fellow student activists and sickle, and it uses the genjer-genjer come to adjust to the new regime. As an song that is associated with the PKI as eternal oppositionist, he challenges all of part of its soundtrack, both of which kinds of establishments. An avid would have been impossible in the New proponent of living close to nature, Gie Order era.2 The film is also important spends his leisure time hiking and since it tackles a controversial period in watching films. His involvement in the Indonesian history, involving the student movement and his destruction of the PKI and the rise to uncompromising idealism has a negative power of Soeharto’s New Order. In the effect on his personal life. His intimacy history of Indonesian cinema, there is with his two female friends Ira and Sinta only one other film, the 1982 never develops, since the girls’ parents government-sponsored Pengkhianatan are worried about their daughters’ G30S/PKI (The Indonesian Communist involvement with someone well-known Party’s Betrayal of 30 September), that for his rebellious spirit.1 One day, Gie deals with this sensitive theme. Directed meets Han, his childhood friend, who by Arifin C. Noer, this film is viewed by has become closely involved with the contemporary Indonesian film critics as Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), an epic propaganda film, centring on the while Gie has remained politically role of Soeharto as a military leader and neutral. Gie suggests that Han should his defeat of the attempted coup of 30 abandon his ties with the PKI, but Han September 1965 that was led by Colonel refuses. At the time of the conflict Untung, a Communist Party sympathiser between the military and the PKI, Han’s (Kristanto, 1995:244). political affiliation is very dangerous. Coming twenty-three years after Finally, Han and a band of PKI Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI, Gie followers are massacred by Soeharto’s immediately provoked controversy New Order soldiers on a beach in Bali, because it was produced without an event which outrages Gie’s sense of government sponsorship. Many film humanity. Gie then criticises the brutal critics applauded its content and artistic massacre in articles published in some value, but expressed reservations and

2 disappointment about its lack of focus Indonesian, with English translations and weak screenplay and dialogue. For provided in a footnote. example, an article by Hera Diani In the analysis of film text, the study has entitled “High Expectation overwhelms used published film screenplay where it Gie” criticised the film’s superficial is available. This publication is very portrayal of the main characters. Diani useful, as they contain significant argues that “Gie concentrates too much supplementary data on the film on the political movement aspect and not production process. The published script on the human relationships between its of Gie describes the fascinating but also characters”. She suggests that Riri complicated process of adapting Soe should have focused on the friendship Hok Gie’s biography Catatan Seorang between Gie and Han, who was a victim Demonstran to the cinema screen. It of the massacres of PKI supporters, or includes notes on the re-drafting process, maybe on the friendship between the which reveal that the script went through activists, or Gie as a rare-breed activist eight drafts before reaching its final hailing from the Chinese Indonesian form, as well as analyses of the script by community (Diani, 2005). Eric Sasono (Riza, 2005: vi). Like film reviews and other METHOD media reports, this screenplay contribute As a film study, the primary data is Riri to the secondary data that assists in film Riza’s Soe Hok Gie which is studied as a analysis. Qualitative methodology has cinematic text, taking into account both been used in the collection of other form and style. As part of a film’s form, forms of secondary data. In-depth narrative is the key element in shaping interviews with the filmmakers were the film’s overall meaning. As a system, conducted to gain supplementary data on it includes plot, story, space and time. their perceptions of gender and sexual However, as an art form, film differs diversity. Interviews were conducted in from other aesthetic products, in that person interview or electronically. It is form is not its only aspect. Unlike the acknowledged that the electronic novel or painting, for example, film is a interview format provides a more limited total experience (Bordwell and opportunity to explore the filmmaker’s Thompson, 2008: 111). This introduces arguments and opinions. Where relevant, film style, or the non-narrative aspects of data from film posters and form, as the second area of analysis. advertisements have also been included Style, in this context, includes cinematic in the body of secondary material techniques such as mise-en-scène, analysed. cinematography and sound. By taking into account both these areas of analysis, DISCUSSION the study attempts to see the complete Between Queer Spectatorship and film as a coherent and integrated text. Queer Text However it also recognises the need for One interesting aspect of the reception attention to specific shots and scenes that and criticism of Gie was the perception can challenge the film’s overall among some observers that the film has meaning. It argues that these individual a homoerotic subtext. This recalls the components have the potential to subvert phenomenon which Benshoff and Griffin the overall coherence of the film refer to as “queer spectatorship” in their narrative. As the films is analysed as an list of the five criteria that a film might aesthetic text, extracts from the film qualify a film as “queer”. In their dialogues are quoted in their original discussion of queer film, Benshoff and

3 Griffin (2006:15—16) describe a resistance reading resistance reading and number of formulaic representations of challenges dominant perceptions of queer characters and queer images. gender and sexuality. The fourth Firstly, the way characters act or speak, possibility is related to film genre. especially when they use language or Horror and science fiction films can mannerisms that are associated with often be considered as queer in their stereotypical images of homosexual representation of sexual identity as fluid, people, can evoke queer associations for blurring the boundary of the real and the audiences. Secondly, an “unusual name”, unreal. Lastly, factors involving the costumes or make up of the characters spectators’ psychological processes may can serve to disrupt viewers’ perceptions be considered. The act of identification of the fixed sexual or gender identities of with the queer characters may involve a the characters. For instance, if a woman questioning or a confirmation of the character uses a male name (or vice spectators’ own gender and sexual versa), some gender disruption is likely identities. to ensue. Thirdly, the appearance of an In their view, the queer viewing object, image or colour closely position offers a model of resistance associated with same-sex desire can raise reading that potentially “challenges associations with non-normative dominant perceptions about gender and sexuality. For instance, purple is sexuality”. They argue that in many stereotyped as a lesbian/gay colour. cases, personal experience means that Lastly, music, songs or singers that are queer spectators read film differently recognisable as queer icons can from the way straight viewers might introduce a queer presence into film, view the same film (Benshoff and such as is the case with reference to, or Griffin, 2006:10). appearances by, Kylie Minogue or The question of “queer Madonna. In contemporary queer film, spectatorship” builds on film theory’s these cliché representations are rejected. interest in the interrelation between In the TV series such as Queer Eye for spectator and film. In the 1970s, some the Straight Gay (2003) and Queer as French and then British and American Folk (1999), queer culture is depicted film scholars began applying openly and directly as a celebration of psychoanalysis to film studies in an non-normative expressions of sexual attempt to analyse the screen-spectator desire. relationship as well as the textual Benshoff and Griffin (2006:9—10) relationships within the film. Based on also suggest five criteria which might Freud’s theory of libido drives and define a cinematic portrayal as “queer” Lacan’s theory of the mirror stage, they film. Together, these five criteria refer to argued that cinema works at the level of the interrelation between film, unconsciousness. In a dark room, the filmmaking and film spectators. Firstly, spectator looks at the screen and derives a film may contain queer characters and visual pleasure from the screen. Part of deal with queer issues. The second that pleasure comes from a narcissistic criterion is authorship. A film might be identification with the person on the classified as a queer film if the directors, screen. In 1975, Christian Metz drew on the producers or the film stars can be the analogy of the screen with the mirror identified as queer. The third criterion by as a way of talking about spectator which a film may qualify as queer is positioning and the voyeuristic aspect of queer spectatorship. A queer viewing film viewing, whereby the spectator is position potentially offers a model of identified with camera’s gaze. He argued

4 that the spectator exhibits similar as a way of formulating readings that do properties to those of the male child at not necessarily show the woman as Lacan’s mirror stage (Hayward, object of the gaze (Hayward, 2006:178). 2006:176). The process of “reading against the Metz’s theory, which relates grain”, which maximises the possibility exclusively to male spectators, was of the viewer’s interpretation, plays an revised by the feminist film critic Laura important role in film analysis, and has Mulvey in her groundbreaking essay, come to occupy a significant place in “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” queer film studies. “Reading against the (1975). In this essay, Mulvey argued that grain method aims to renegotiate the classical cinema invariably constructs a dominant hetero-normative ideology that male gaze. She describes the way the is often naturalized rhetorically within camera, diegetic characters, and actual film” (Krzywinska, 2006:26). As Sen spectators all join together to objectify and Hill (2000:147) point out, women as erotic spectacles and create a interpretation of film as a cultural text is male subject position for those in the never perfect or complete. Film audience, regardless of their actual sex potentially encourages the gay audience (Mulvey, 1992:24). This means, for to “read against the grain”, to produce Mulvey, the spectator position offered readings that resist the standard by Hollywood cinema is masculine, with interpretations of a particular film. This female characters positioned merely as model of resistance reading challenges objects of male desire. Karen Hollinger the relationship between the audience (1998:17) suggests that Mulvey’s article and text, making it not fixed but fluid. has been influential because it is not only Caroline Evans and Lorraine related to the issue of pleasure, Gamman in their article “reviewing spectatorship and gender, but also raises queer viewing” argue that all text a significant challenge to a feminist potentially can be viewed queerly. Some theorisation of female spectatorship. In texts actually “encourage” queer viewing the context of queer theory, however, or a queer gaze: anti-essentialist, fluid, Mulvey’s argument has come to be seen multiple, and historically constructed. as an inadequate description of the For instance, the ambiguity of the sexual female spectator’s position. Her theory image of Madonna’s Justify Your Love “only concludes that [female viewers] pop promo suggests the fluidity of must either identify with passive, gender identification (2004:218). fetishized position of the female Similarly, Judith Mayne (1994:159) character on screen […] or, if she is to asserts that “one of the most significant derive pleasure, must assume a male directions in spectatorship studies has positioning (a masculine third person)” investigated the gap opened up between (Hayward, 2006:372—373). the ways in which texts construct In an attempt to counter the viewers and how those texts may be read “phallocentrism” of Mulvey’s theory, or used in ways that depart from what some film studies scholars suggested a the institution valorizes”. Queer film different perspective on the spectator as scholars maximise the power of a subject which is not passive but fluid. cinematic representation by resisting the In the mid 1980s, Ann Kaplan, for official meaning. instance, argued that both men and The response to Riri Riza’s Gie by women can adopt dominant or some queer viewers needs to be explored submissive roles. She raises the in the light of this aspect of queer theory possibility of “reading against the grain”, and its application to film studies. The

5 “queer spectatorship perspective” implicitly includes Gie’s male friends suggests that there are aspects of the film among those he “loves”. For Rahman text of Gie – described below – that and Agusta, all these aspects raise encourage the emergence of a “queer questions about Gie’s sexual desire. gaze”. They believe that this film is very homoerotic even though this aspect of Homosociality and the Homoerotic this film never came to be discussed Interpretation of Gie publicly (Rahman, 2005). The homoerotic interpretation of Gie A similar identification of a first emerged in a film discussion homoerotic subtext also emerged in a between Lisabona Rahman and Paul gay mailing list group discussion named Agusta, who argued that Gie is the first undercover_id on 31 July 2005.3 homoerotic Indonesian film (Rahman, “Undercover person”, according to the 2005). They asserted that this film mailing list coordinator, is a gay or should be entitled Gie dan Han (Gie and bisexual male who hides his homosexual Han) since the close relationship identity from his straight counterparts.4 between the two male characters is the Dewa Rajasa, one of the list members, central motif of the whole film. In their wrote his impression of the film by view, the homoerotic aspects of Gie can comparing it with Soe Hok Gie’s diary. I be found, firstly, in the angle of the shots quote Rajasa’s email to examine the way that focus on the boys’ legs and tight queer spectators with their own short pants when Gie and Han are sitting experiences may read film differently together on a roof in the film’s opening from straight viewers. scenes. In a later scene, when Gie is asleep on a couch, they point out that the Gie: Paling beruntung adalah mereka light is aimed directly at his crotch in yang tidak pernah dilahirkan, lebih central frame, a device which in their beruntung lagi mereka yang mati muda, dan yang paling sial adalah view focuses attention on the question of 5 Gie’s sexuality. Secondly, the intimacy mereka yang berumur panjang. between Gie and Han and the way Gie is Kalimat ini cermin dari Soe Hok Gie physically uncomfortable when he is yang entah kenapa desperate banget. around Ira and Sinta but very much ease Gue jadi ingat saat2 dulu waktu gue when he is around his male friends, is masih bingung nyari identitas gue. one of the main recurring motifs of the Kenapa sih si Gie ini desperate film. Rahman and Agusta believe that banget? Orang putus asa biasanya the function of the two women in the karena masalah pribadi, mungkin story is to create a conflict in Gie’s karena broken home, narkoba, atau sexuality. Thirdly, when Ira reads Gie’s orientasi seks. Apakah si Gie ini gay? last letter at the end of the film, the Kalo di film keluarga dia sepertinya letter’s function at first seems to be to baik-baik aja. Kalo emang dia gay, kenapa di catatan hariannya gak ada quell any thoughts of homosexuality in sama sekali clue yang nunjukin ini? Gie. But after the first two sentences, the Padahal as u know, maybe 99% gay itu letter starts using kalian, the plural form punya buku harian, kepada siapa of “you” for Gie’s references to those he menangis dan mengeluh (being gay is “loves”, something which in their view tough…so all alone). Apa mungkin negates whatever proposition was sebelum dipublikasikan, catatan initially suggested. The use of kalian can hariannya diedit dulu oleh entah unsettle the viewer’s assumptions about siapa? Karena jika tidak, nilai 6 Gie’s feelings for Ira, because it keheroannya jadi berkurang.

6 A similar commentary was made by fantasies of power, omnipotence, other member, Andree Lim on 1 mastery and control. The glamorous August 2005. male movie star and the fantasy of the more perfect, more complete and more Hi all, powerful ideal ego influence the Setelah gue nonton film Gie, gue narcissistic identification”. The fact that merasa Gie itu KK alias undercover. Soe Hok Gie is played by Nicholas Bagaimana menurut teman-teman yang 7 Saputra, the most popular and good- lain? looking of contemporary young Indonesian film actors, may be what A very different perspective was put sparks the narcissistic identification. The by Rehan Putra on 2 August, 2005. gay spectator is appropriating Gie, through Saputra, as one of his own. Gie bukan gay, bukan hetero, bukan Bi, What is interesting here is the bukan apa-apa. Gie adalah sosok manusia yang telah mencapai tingkat different interpretation suggested by pencerahan yang lebih tinggi dari Rehan Putra. By arguing that love is pencarian jati diri dia. Gay, hetro, bi more sublime and wider than a sexual atau apapun namanya, itu semua identity, Rehan is expressing the view adalah istilah yang gak dipakai dalam that Gie is a kind of higher being who kamus Gie. Lewat pencarian jati diri cannot be understood according to itu, dia menemukan yang namanya arti ordinary categories. In this perspective, cinta yang sesungguhnya. Dia juga the common binary opposition of menentang pernikahan karena heterosexual and homosexual categories merupakan bentuk kekuasaan laki-laki is not applicable in understanding Gie’s terhadap perempuan.8 identity. How then does Rehan Putra’s reading relate to the idea of “queer Lacking any detailed argument and spectatorship”? At first sight, this might explanation, the queer responses above appear to be a reading by a “queer suggest that the interpretations of these spectator” that rejects the queer gaze. viewers are mostly based on their However, it is also possible to argue that personal impressions. Rajasa’s opinion a radical queer viewing position would tends to be influenced by his reading of reject the assumption that sexuality must Gie’s diary, while Andree Lim bases his be expressed in a recognisable form. The opinion on the film itself. Rehan Putra’s very absence of a recognisable sexuality argument may be based by both Gie’s can, in some circumstances, be “queer”. diary and Riri Riza’s film. Rajasa’s In his reading of the homoerotic belief that for most gay men, “being gay interpretation by contributors to the is tough…so all alone”, may be one undercover_id mailing list group reason why he classifies the desperate discussion, Mujiarso (2005) explores in Gie as an “undercover person”. Rajasa’s detail what he believes is the film’s statement, which is based on his own homoerotic sub-text. He argues that the experience as a gay man helps explain film narrative itself offers some the process of identification between the possibilities for such an interpretation male spectator and the male protagonist. (2005). In his view, the portrayal of the However, it is also possible that Rajasa intimate friendship between Han and Gie and Andree Lim are simply expressing a builds up through the film narrative from narcissistic identification with the Gie the beginning to the end. The emphasis character in the film. Laura Mulvey on a repeated male bonding between Gie (cited in Neale, 1992:279) argues that “a and Han in their adolescence is narcissistic identification involves

7 represented by the filmmakers from the Gie asserts that Soekarno, Hatta and opening scene when the two boys are Syahrir always rebelled against injustice chased by a group of kampung residents and repression. Han seems confused and after they are suspected of spilling the asks Gie to go to with him to the beach. paint the group is using to paint a But the boys are suddenly separated revolutionary slogan on a brick wall. The when Han and his aunt move to another boys hide, together joining a Betawi city. The viewer sees Gie chasing the wedding parade to escape their pursuers. truck that is taking Han away from him. The soundtrack moves to Gie’s voice- Gie and Han are separated for a long over telling his date of birth. The Gie- time, and the film starts to focus on Gie Han story continues when they enter an as a student activist at the University of alley. Gie’s book on Soekarno drops Indonesia. from his pocket and Han instinctively At this point in the film, Mujiarso picks it up. They climb a roof to hide (2005) argues, the repetition and from their pursuers. They sit together on dramatisation of male bonding between the roof and Han returns Gie’s book. The Gie and Han can be viewed as male camera then moves to the interior of homosocial desire. He is referring to Eve Gie’s home with the rain coming down Kosofsky Sedgwick’s argument hard. Suddenly Han comes in with wet (1985:1—2) that the homosocial is “a clothes. Gie wipes Han’s hair with a social bond between persons of the same towel outside, while all of Gie’s family sex; it is a neologism, obviously formed watch the incident suspiciously. Dien, by analogy with ‘homosexual’ and just one of Gie’s older sisters, suggests Han as obviously meant to be distinguished should return to his aunt’s home, but Gie from ‘homosexual’”. Sedgwick quickly and confidently interrupts, describes the homosocial as a “potential saying that Han should stay with them. unbrokenness of a continuum with When Gie’s older brother, Soe Hok Djin, homosexual, a continuum whose says that Han’s problem is not their visibility, for men, in our society is problem and suggests Gie accompany radically disrupted” (1985:1—2). She Han to back to his aunt’s place, Gie acknowledges that the nature of this replies firmly that returning means a boundary varies from society to society return to domestic violence. When Nio, and from era to era, and even within one Han’s aunt comes with two civil guards society it can differ between women and (pamong praja) and forces Han to return men since they may have different home, Gie pulls Han’s hand while his access to power (1985:2). aunt pulls his other hand. One of the As the film narrative develops, guards hits Gie and Han returns home however, Mujiarso believes that with Nio. homosociality is not an adequate The following day, at the Strada framework to interpret the emotional junior high school, the two students are bonding between the two boys, since the walking together. Gie stares at Han’s film narrative repeatedly portrays Gie’s injured cheek, while Gie has only a deep emotional bonding with Han. He scratch on his temple. Their argues that the intimacy between Gie companionship is reaffirmed when Gie is and Han should be considered as punished by his teacher, pak Arifin. Han homoeroticism rather than male accompanies Gie, and waits for him homosocial desire.9 The homoerotic while he is punished on the school aspect can be found especially in the key playing field. Han also strives to scene on the beach when two boys chase understand Gie’s thoughts and idealism. each other. Later, they unexpectedly

8 meet again as young men in their the points noted by Mujiarso in support twenties with different political of his interpretation of the film, there are affiliations. Deeply surprised by the other aspects to the film narrative of Gie event, Gie dreams they spend time that support the homoerotic together on the same beach where they interpretation Mujiarso has proposed. played together as adolescents. In his First among these is the focus on Gie’s second dream, Gie, who has greatly uneasiness with girls, that is referred to missed Han, asks in the intimate and in the article by Lisabona Rahman informal style the boys once used with mentioned above. Gie is more confident each other, “Kemana aja lu, Han?”.10 with his male friends or when he is They laugh and run together all along the immersed in the beauty of nature. A beach. The scene is supported by voice significant scene occurs when Gie’s over which recites Gie’s poem: male friends introduce him to Santi, an attractive prostitute. Gie is unable to Kabut tipis pun turun pelan-pelan di speak easily; he seems to be very frigid lembah kasih, lembah Mandalawangi. in front of a mature woman. This scene Kau dan aku tegak berdiri melihat can be read in two possible ways. Firstly, hutan-hutan yang menjadi it may indicate that Gie is a faithful man suram…Apakah kau masih membelaiku who is consistently fights to the honesty semesra dahulu ketika kudekap, kau 11 and integrity. Secondly, the scene can be dekaplah lebih mesra, lebih dekat. read as an attempt by Gie’s male friends Gie’s poem, in Mujiarso’s view, can to make him more confident with be read as a homoerotic symbol of the women. Gie’s friends want to educate bond between the two young men him about what it means to be male. In (2005). the masculine activist world, his friends Mujiarso’s interpretation of the perceive Gie as not having enough homoerotic subtext of the film suggests experience with women. that there are aspects of the film text Another aspect of Gie’s uneasiness itself that encourage the “narcissistic with girls can be seen in his failure to identification” and “queer gaze” which maintain his relationships with Ira and some queer viewers have brought to this Sinta. Gie cannot communicate clearly film. Together, the gay film critic his desire, even for Ira, his “fighter (Mujiarso) and the queer spectators spirit”. One scene shows how uneasy he (undercover_id) have succeeded in is in Ira’s company. producing a “resistance reading” of Gie Gie:Kamu pernah rikuh gak sih kalo as mainstream cinema. In this case, they berduaan sama aku begini? can be seen as constituting what Janet Ira: Hah? Staiger calls “perverse spectators” Gie: Ya...kalau berdua sama aku (2000:1). The term implies “a wilful begini...maksudnya kamu tuh merasa turning away from the dominant notions kita berdua tuh gimana, apa sama of right or good. Perverse spectators do kayak kakakmu, pacarmu, atau...? not do what is expected, it is precisely Ira: Kamu ngomong apaan?12 the unexpected readings, meanings and an effective power to negotiate the The dialogue suggests that Gie is dominant cinematic interpretation that not physically confident about the future they embody”. of his relationship with Ira. Similarly, in There remains, however, the the kissing scene between Gie and Sinta, question of what is the “expected it is Sinta herself who initiates the kiss, reading” of Riri Riza’s film. For beyond although Gie clearly does return her

9 initiative.13Evidence external to the film director especially, about Soe Hok Gie itself also suggests the possibility of a and the era. A film does not belong to us. fluid interpretation of Gie’s personal It is the right of the audience to have identity. Riri Riza has described Soe their own perception” (Miles Film, Hok Gie as a complex human being: 2005). The emergence of this model of “He talked a lot of big politics. Some “perverse reading” in the queer other times, he also talked about pets community is a good indication of the and how difficult it was to talk to way sexual diversity in Indonesia is women. If we read Catatan Seorang understood by a particular film audience. Demonstran, we will sense that there At the same time, the way the was a never ending battle in himself. filmmakers negotiate the emotional That is what I am trying to capture in this film. Gie is a human being full of bonding between persons of the same paradox, a human being with so many sex in Gie can be seen as a breakthrough battles on his mind” (Miles Film, in the development of Indonesian film 2005). culture in general. The film’s move away from normative assumptions about From this point of view, Riri Riza same-sex relationships is a further reconstructs Soe Hok Gie’s profile based indication of the queering of Indonesian on his own perceptions. On the release cinema during the Reform era. of Gie, Tempo questioned Riri about the beach scene at the end of the film. Riri CONCLUSION replied firmly: “Everyone asks about it, The portrayals of intimacy and let it remain a mystery” (Tempo, 17 July togetherness of the two male characters, 2005:70). Moreover, Riri has asserted Han and Gie, in this film are ambiguous. that the characterisation of Han is the In addition, internal narrative central point of the whole film. Han is a consistency in the films is sometimes representation of “someone who dreams disrupted by a reluctance to pursue the of freedom” (Tempo, 17 July 2005:70). homoerotic suggestions towards their Han may be seen as an “alter-ego” for logical conclusions. The presence of the Gie in his struggle for freedom. The homoerotic element in these films means dramatisation of Han’s death on the that they can be seen as contributing to beach and Gie’s death in the mountain the “queering” of contemporary seems to symbolise their deep emotional Indonesian cinema. One of significant bonding. developments is the emergence of queer The speculation by gay spectators spectators who progressively read the about Gie’s sexuality is thus film from queer perspective. Moreover, underpinned both intrinsically, in the male bonding in Gie leads to the issue of way particular scenes in the film can be social change. For Gie, Han is not only read, as well as extrinsically, in the his “alter ego”, but also a symbol of his discourse that accompanied the film at political commitment and dedication to the time of its release. In every respect, marginalised people. In this way, Gie Gie emerges as a multi-interpretable can be seen as a celebration and film, an interpretation of an era whose idealisation of the way male meaning is always multiple and fluid. relationships can lead to more Arief Budiman, Gie’s older brother, progressive social change. The dramatic asserts that the story of Soe Hok Gie death of Han inspires Gie to be more belongs to the public. “It is an critical of social inequality and power interpretation and perception by the abuse. It can be said that the film

10 encourages the possibility of a “perverse reading” by their queer viewers. They the film, his family seems normal. If he really illustrate the way texts that are identified is gay, why is it that in his diary there’s no clue at all that points to this? Even though, as as queer have the potential to affirm and you know, maybe 99% of gay people have validate their queer spectators, instilling diaries, to whom they cry and complain in them self-confidence in their non- (being gay is tough...so all alone). Is it normative sexuality. This emergence of possible that before it was published, his queer viewing in the act of experiencing diary was first edited by who knows whom? Because if not, his level of ‘hero-ness’ would film and identifying with characters can decrease. be seen as a significant innovation in the 7 Hi all. After watching the film, Gie, I felt like development of Indonesian film culture. Gie was KK or ‘undercover’. What do others think? 8 Gie is not gay, hetero, bi, or anything else, 1 Riri Riza has said that Ira and Sinta are Gie is a human being who has already fictional characters who are representative of attained a higher level of enlightment from five of Soe Hok Gie’s female friends (Tempo, the process of searching for his own identity. 17 July 2005:70). Gie’s diary, Catatan Gay, hetero, bi, or whatever it is called, they Seorang Demonstran, mentions three are all terms which are not used in Gie’s intimate female friends: Maria, Rina and dictionary. Through the process of searching Sunarti. Maria is Gie’s “fighter spirit” but for self-identity, he found what is called the their romance is rejected by Maria’s parents, meaning of true love. He also opposed while Rina’s parents also reject Gie because marriage because it represents a form of male authority over women. of his different religion and ethnicity. Sunarti 9 is the woman who is with Gie the day before Martti Nissinen (1998:17) defines homoero- his untimely death (Dhakidae, 1983:65—66; ticism as an erotic mutual interaction between Gie, 1983). persons of the same sex, even though there is 2 The song Genjer-genjer was written by not an exclusive homosexual orientation. 10 “Where have you been, Han?” Muhammad Arief, a Banyuwangi-born 11 composer in 1943. In the 1960s, it became A light fog falls slowly in the valley of love, something of the PKI anthem. In the New Mandalawangi valley. You and I stand tall Order era, the song became closely associated watching the forests grow dark...Do you still with the supposed torture of the generals in caress me as warmly as before when I would the attempted coup of 30 September 1965 embrace you? Embrace me even more warmly, even closer. (Nugroho, 2007). 12 3 Founded on 7 June 2002, the group is the Gie: Ra, do you feel uncomfortable when we most prolific gay internet discussion forum. It are together like this? has almost 3,000 members (Mujiarso, 2005). Ira: Hah? 4 See (Undercover_id Website, 2005). Gie: Yeah…when you are together with 5 Gie: The luckiest are those who have never me…I mean, what do you feel about us? Do been born. Even luckier are those who die you think of me as your older brother, your young, and the unluckiest are those who live boyfriend, or … Ira: What are you talking about? long lives. This sentence is an adaptation of 13 the following passage in Soe Hok Gie’s In a response to this kissing scene in the film, diary: “Seorang filsuf Yunani pernah berkata Herman Lantang and Jopie Lasut, two of Soe bahwa nasib terbaik adalah tidak dilahirkan, Hok Gie’s friends, stated that it would be yang kedua dilahirkan tetapi mati muda, dan impossible for Gie to have initiated the kiss yang tersial adalah umur tua. Rasa-rasanya (Tempo, 17 July 2005:62). The Australian memang begitu. Bahagialah mereka yang scholar John Maxwell, who made a detailed mati muda” (Gie, 1983:125—126). study of Soe Hok Gie and his diary, and was 6 This statement is a reflection of Soe Hok Gie an adviser to Riri Riza during the film who, for some reason, is very desperate. It production, also commented that “Gie was reminds me of the times when I was still certainly very popular among the young searching for my own identity. Why is it that female students at Sastra, where he seems to this Gie character is so desperate? Usually have become someone looked up to for people lose hope as a result of personal advice when personal problems arose. But as problems, maybe because of a broken home, far as more private and personal relationships drugs, or sexual orientation. Is Gie gay? In there were three young women who stood out

11 at different times. These appear to have never Miles Film. 2005. Gie: Press Kit. moved beyond rather conventional and (Online). (http://www.milesfilms. conservative boyfriend-girlfriend relationships given what appears to have been com/gie, accessed on 15 December Soe's rather prudish personal morality” 2007). (personal communication with Keith Mujiarso. 2005. Homoerotika dalam Foulcher, 7 May 2008). Gie. (Online). (http://www.layar- perak.com, accessed on 15 Decem- ber 2006). REFERENCES Mulvey, Laura. 1992. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”. In the Ajidarma, Seno Gumira. 2005. “Gie: Sexual Subject: A Screen Reader in Menguji Keterbukaan”. Tempo. 17 Sexuality, edited by J. Caughie and July, 72. A. Kuhn. London and New York: Benshoff, Harry M, and Sean Griffin. Routledge. 2004. Queer Cinema: the Film Neale, Steve. 1992. “Masculinity as Reader. New York: Routledge. Spectacle”. In the Sexual Subject: A ______. 2006. Queer Images: A History Screen Reader in Sexuality, edited of Gay and Lesbian Film in by J. Caughie and A. Kuhn. London America. Oxford: Rowman & and New York: Routledge. Littlefield Publishing. Nissinen, Martti. 1998. Homoeroticism Dhakidae, Daniel. 1983. “Soe Hok Gie: in the Biblical World: A Historical Sang Demonstran”. In Catatan Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Seorang Demonstran. Jakarta: Press. LPES. Nugroho, ID. 2007. “PKI-Linked Song Diani, Hera. 2005. “High Expectations Brings Pain for Family of Overwhelm Gie”. The Jakarta Post. Composer”. The Jakarta Post. 2 10 July. October. Evans, Caroline, and Lorraine Gamman. Q-Film Festival Website. 2007. (Online). 2004. “Reviewing Queer Viewing”. (www.qfilmfestival.org, accessed In Queer Cinema: The Film Reader, on 11 December 2007) edited by H. M. Benshoff and S. Rahman, Lisabona. 2005. History, Griffin. New York: Routledge. Propaganda, and Perception: A Gie, Soe Hok. 1983. Catatan Seorang Conversation on Gie. (Online). Demonstran. Jakarta: LP3ES. (http://criticine.com, accessed on 27 Hayward, Susan. 2006. Cinema Studies: December 2005). The Key Concepts. London and Riza, Riri. 2005. Gie: Naskah Skenario. New York: Routledge. Jakarta: Nalar. Hollinger, Karen. 1998. In the Company Sasono, Eric. 2005. Cermin Bernama of Women: Contemporary Female Gie. (Online).(http://ericsasono. Friendship Films. Minneapolis: blogspot.com, accessed on 3 De- University of Minnesota. cember 2006). Krzywinska, Tanya. 2006. Sex and Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 1985. Between Cinema. London: Wallflower Press. Men: English Literature and Male Mayne, Judith. 1994. Paradoxes of Homosocial Desire. New York: Spectatorship. In Viewing Positions: Columbia University Press. Ways of Seeing Film, edited by L. ______. 1990. Epistemology of the William. New Brunswick: Rutgers Closet. London: Harvester/Wheat University Press. sheaf.

12 Sen, Krishna, and David T Hill. 2000. Media, Culture and Politics in Indonesia. New York: Oxford University Press. Staiger, Janet. 2000. Perverse Spectators: the Practices of Film Reception. New York: New York University Press. Tempo. 2003. “Merayakan Erotika Queer: dari Salon Langsung ke Layar Putih”. Tempo.12 October, 71—85. Tempo. 2005. “Soe Hok Gie: Kegelisah- an Tanpa Ujung”. Tempo. 17 July, 59—72. Undercover_id Website. 2005. (Online). (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/und ercover_id, accessed on 18 December 2005