Introduction
The discourses of exploitation movies, rural spectatorship and layar tancap (traveling cinema) as a form of distribution/exhibition culture in Indonesia’s New Order era (1966-1998) were, and still are, marginalised both nationally and globally. It is important to note that, despite official attempts to regulate this kind of touring cinema within Indonesia, the three elements interplayed and developed their own characteristics as the opposite of official taste. Layar tancap became the outlets of local exploitation films and led them to rural and suburban audiences who tended to reject state-approved products in favour of these disreputable forms.
In Indonesia, it is acknowledged that almost no discussion of the relationship between popular genre films and rural spectatorship should omit mention of the terms layar tancap or bioskop keliling. Layar tancap literally means ‘screens stuck on the ground’, whereas bioskop keliling can be translated as ‘traveling/mobile cinema show’. The two terms are interchangeable. Commonly, as a business unit, this kind of touring cinema consists of a screen (layar), a projector, and a few 16mm films, brought by a vehicle from a village to another remote area for exhibition. The journalist JB Kristanto writes that these kinds of traveling cinemas play low quality exploitation films in response to the spectators’ demands. [1]
Layar tancap shows were in their golden era in the New Order period, notorious for its emphasis on security, development, stability, and state-control. In the film industry, the government applied stringent censorship and attempted to control all aspects of the film industry [2], including layar tancap shows, exploitation films, and their rural audience. [3]
This article will demonstrate that layar tancap shows and their rural audiences are signs of counterculture which challenge legitimate culture. By observing the New Order’s film policies as well as general and trade magazines, I will investigate why and how this kind of cinema displayed Indonesian exploitation films, and how they generated a particular subculture of rural spectatorship. I also want to emphasise how various kinds of taste politics—from the government to the rural spectators and the layar tancap entrepreneurs - negotiate each other.
The New Order’s Politics of Taste
According to the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, tastes are socially and culturally constructed. [4] Moreover, Bourdieu underlines that “… whereas the ideology of charisma regards taste in legitimate culture as a gift of nature, scientific observation shows that cultural needs are the product of upbringing and education…” [5] Bourdieu highlights that since taste categorises people and makes people distinguish themselves by their distinctions. [6], taste must be defined in terms of class difference. As Henry Jenkins puts it:
The discourses of exploitation movies, rural spectatorship and layar tancap (traveling cinema) as a form of distribution/exhibition culture in Indonesia’s New Order era (1966-1998) were, and still are, marginalised both nationally and globally. It is important to note that, despite official attempts to regulate this kind of touring cinema within Indonesia, the three elements interplayed and developed their own characteristics as the opposite of official taste. Layar tancap became the outlets of local exploitation films and led them to rural and suburban audiences who tended to reject state-approved products in favour of these disreputable forms.
In Indonesia, it is acknowledged that almost no discussion of the relationship between popular genre films and rural spectatorship should omit mention of the terms layar tancap or bioskop keliling. Layar tancap literally means ‘screens stuck on the ground’, whereas bioskop keliling can be translated as ‘traveling/mobile cinema show’. The two terms are interchangeable. Commonly, as a business unit, this kind of touring cinema consists of a screen (layar), a projector, and a few 16mm films, brought by a vehicle from a village to another remote area for exhibition. The journalist JB Kristanto writes that these kinds of traveling cinemas play low quality exploitation films in response to the spectators’ demands. [1]
Layar tancap shows were in their golden era in the New Order period, notorious for its emphasis on security, development, stability, and state-control. In the film industry, the government applied stringent censorship and attempted to control all aspects of the film industry [2], including layar tancap shows, exploitation films, and their rural audience. [3]
This article will demonstrate that layar tancap shows and their rural audiences are signs of counterculture which challenge legitimate culture. By observing the New Order’s film policies as well as general and trade magazines, I will investigate why and how this kind of cinema displayed Indonesian exploitation films, and how they generated a particular subculture of rural spectatorship. I also want to emphasise how various kinds of taste politics—from the government to the rural spectators and the layar tancap entrepreneurs - negotiate each other.
The New Order’s Politics of Taste
According to the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, tastes are socially and culturally constructed. [4] Moreover, Bourdieu underlines that “… whereas the ideology of charisma regards taste in legitimate culture as a gift of nature, scientific observation shows that cultural needs are the product of upbringing and education…” [5] Bourdieu highlights that since taste categorises people and makes people distinguish themselves by their distinctions. [6], taste must be defined in terms of class difference. As Henry Jenkins puts it:
The boundaries of “good taste” … must constantly be policed; proper tastes must be separated from improper tastes; those who possess the wrong tastes must be distinguished from those whose tastes conform more closely to our own expectations. [7]
Thus, the Indonesian government and cultural elites framed film nasional (national film) as a representation of the ‘true’ Indonesian cultures. In this context, films should be kultural edukatif (containing educational and cultural purposes) or represent the search for the “Indonesian face on screen.” [8] Thomas Barker highlights that the concept of film nasional can be considered as a form of legitimate culture:
Film nasional as a national cinema defined the parameters of nation and national culture and whose proponents established a group of auteur directors as exemplary Artists whose works are canonized into film history. [9]
Distributors also play important roles in taste contestation. Lobato writes that acts of distribution “… shape public taste as well as reflect it, creating a feedback loop between distribution and demand”. [10] Lobato’s arguments can be applied to layar tancap’s companies. This phenomenon is in line with Heider’s claim on the situation of Indonesia in the 1980s:
The forces of the marketplace have an effect on shaping films as well. But at least in the case of scenes of sexuality and violence, the audience’s demands pull filmmakers in the opposite direction from the censorship board. [11]
However, spectators have their own politics of taste. Fans as John Fiske puts it, fans “discriminate fiercely” [12] by choosing to celebrate particular tastes and exclude others. In this context, I argue that the New Order’s rural audience acted as discriminating fans in Fiske’s sense.
Exploitation Films in the New Order Era
Global fans in the 2000s and beyond recognise the New Order’s exploitation films as ‘Crazy Indonesia’ for their elements of weirdness and exoticism. International distributors labelled them as ‘cult movies’. [13] The films include Primitif (1978), Jaka Sembung (The Warrior, 1981), and Lady Terminator (1989).
Nonetheless, in Indonesia, most of industry players, spectators, fans, critics and film academics were not familiar with the term ‘cult movies’ and ‘exploitation cinema’ until the early 2000s, when the films being analysed were recirculated overseas and gained global fans’ attention. However, related to theories on exploitation films, the idea of “…ethically dubious, industrially marginal, and aesthetically bankrupt”[14], “often dealt with forbidden topics, such as sex, vice, drugs, nudity, and anything considered to be in ‘bad taste’ and commonly low-budget films” [15], and “a film practice ‘in which the elements of plot and acting are subordinate to elements that can be promoted” [16] are suitable with the context of New Order trashy films. Related to the exhibition culture and spectators’ celebration, there is no strong tradition of Midnight Movies or Drive-in cinemas in Indonesia. This is the main reason why I have decided to discuss layar tancap as the outlet of this kind of film which, despite few things being in common with midnight screenings, is different from the tradition of cult cinema practices in the West. I argue that layar tancap is the Indonesian version of midnight movies, since the screenings commonly start from evening to midnight or even dawn.
In the local context, in their original country and time of production, Indonesian exploitation films were not considered ‘official’ representations of Indonesian films and culture [17], as the films are simply the opposite of the concept of film nasional. Most of the films are very famous and recognised by the famous movie stars, such as Barry Prima and Suzanna, yet remained ‘industrially marginal’ as the films were discriminated against by the Government and cultural elites. Related to film reception, most film critics, journalists, and scholars overlooked most exploitation films from this era. The government also tried to eradicate the films as they contained sexual and sadistic scenes and, therefore, against the concept of film nasional.
As the films are nationally famous, they became, as Barry Grant puts it, “Mass Cult” for local fans [18]. This is to say that they were very popular in their era in their own original country, and that they also had cult followers nationwide until recently. In other words, the “Mass Cult” status of the films shows that those films--although shunned and overlooked by the government, cultural elites and film critics at that time--were not marginalised by Indonesian mainstream audiences as the films were considered as mainstream films and some of them became box office hits. The films were also screened widely and publicly, including in layar tancap shows.
What is the difference between Indonesian exploitation movies and other exploitation films? Here, I will modify Karl Heider’s terms on genres and types of Indonesian movies, into which most Indonesian films will fit comfortably. [19] I argue that there are two basic subgenres of Indonesian trashy films: first, ‘Indonesian genres’ (Legend and Kumpeni), and second, Americanised exploitation genres (womensploitation, mockbusters, and women-in-prison films, etc.).
First, the Legend genre, is based on traditional mythologies or folklore wherein the heroes possess mystical powers used in fighting, transformations, and flying. This includes costume dramas, historical legends, or legendary history, all tell stories which are famous throughout Indonesia but rarely get much critical consideration. [20]
Kumpeni genre films are set in the time when Kumpeni (Indonesian slang word for colonial Dutch’s United East India Company/VOC) occupied the archipelago. These films tell of struggles between Dutch and Indonesian superheroes, who again, usually have mystical knowledge (ilmu) taught by an Islamic Guru to defend the village dwellers. In some cases, the colonial soldiers hire a local dukun (black magician) to do battle with them. Sadistic sexuality is common in these works.
Another genre is Horror. In this context, similar with Legend genre, horror movies deal with mystical powers and are mostly about the invention of supernatural monsters who endanger human beings. The stories have a direct connection to traditional folktales and are mostly set in rural areas. Heider underlines that this genre has “gruesome special effects” and presents “crudely sadistic sexuality”. [21]
Other genres also have many similarities with subgenres of Western exploitation cinema. One example is the Japanese Period Genre which is set during the Japanese occupation era (1942-1945). Films of this type concern an Indonesian woman being kidnapped and incarcerated by Japanese soldiers; typically, a noble Japanese officer falls in love with her and tries to save her. These kinds of film have more sexual sadism scenes as well as female nakedness [22], and are closely related to Western women-in-prison films.
The subgenres that I have elaborated upon above, particularly those first discussed, contain some key elements that formulate the global definition of classic Indonesian exploitation films: mystical powers, supernatural heroes, local folklores. The distinct nature of the films relies upon the exoticism (otherness, weirdness) of the subgenres, as elaborated by Karl Heider.
A Brief History of Layar Tancap
Layar tancap is older than indoor and permanent-building movie theatres. When, for the first time, a film was screened in a fixed building at Tanahabang, Kebonjae,
Jakarta (Batavia) on 5th December 1900, excited audiences compared it with a layar tancap cinema called Talbot (named after the owner), in Gambir Market Field, in front of Kota Station, and Lokasari (Manggabesar). [23]
The owners of Bioskop Keliling founded a union called Perbiki or Persatuan Pengusaha Bioskop Keliling (Union of Operators of Mobile Movie Theatres) in April 1978. One of their missions was to distribute domestic films throughout Indonesia, specifically to the remote areas [24], the blank spots [25], where there was little access to television, regular cinema or print media [26]. Chairperson Perbiki, Major General (Retired) Acup Zainal [27] underlines that one of the purposes of the body was to develop the appreciation of domestic films within rural villager communities [28].
In order to gain official acknowledgement, Perbiki changed its name, since the word “bioskop” (cinema) in “bioskop Keliling” refers to one specific style of cinema, and there was already an organisation that dealt with “bioskop”, namely GPBSI (Gabungan Pengusaha Bioskop Seluruh Indonesia, the Indonesian Association of Movie Entrepreneurs). Therefore, on the 2nd of October 1991 [29], Perfiki (Persatuan Perusahaan Pertunjukan Film Keliling Indonesia, Association of Indonesian Mobile Cinema Screening) was founded. Finally, the Minister of Education issued Ministerial Decree no. 130/1993 to legitimise Perfiki, as a film body that could now enjoy equality with other existing film organisations [30].
The official recognition of the institution is significant. Katinka Van Heeren underlines that, since that 1993, the New Order started to control layar tancap, whereas previously the government did not pay attention to either the audiences or this mode of exhibition. She writes:
The original mobile cinema organization was founded in 1974 (sic) and before 1993, when it was granted official recognition as one of the New Order professional film organizations, it was mostly disregarded by the state…. The fact that mobile cinema was seen as lower-class and rural entertainment may be one of the reasons why it had been mostly disregarded by the New Order state. Before 1993, there had been no specific government policy for mobile cinema, nor was it ever included in the National Film Development Programme. [31]
According to van Heeren, no explicit official policies were applied and no data was collected by The Indonesian Statistical Bureau for this open-air cinema [32]. The Indonesian Statistical Bureau (PBS, Pusat Biro Statistik) only complied numbers from ordinary cinemas in the big cities. [33] In contrast to van Heeren’s claims I will argue that Suharto’s government tried to control layar tancap long before the establishment of Perfiki in 1993, precisely because the villagers (being the majority of the total Indonesian population) represented an important asset.
Layar tancap shows commonly operate in rural and suburban areas. In Perbiki’s first congress, in 1983, an agreement was made between Perbiki and GBPSI, called radius aksi (action radius), which regulated the distribution of these films. [34] At that time, mobile cinema companies were accused of stealing regular cinema’s audience and disturbing the distribution and exhibition circulation by screening new movies. In order to avoid this kind of ‘cannibalism’, there were some decisions made by and for Perbiki, including radius aksi, which decreed that mobile cinema shows should be 5 km away from the nearest movie theatre. This means Perbiki was now forced to run their business in countryside or, at least, suburbs.
The government also used layar tancap as vehicles of propaganda and, in 1993, termed their unique distribution of domestic films as a pagar budaya (cultural fence), to filter the villagers from the negative influence of global films. In February 1993, few months before their official acknowledgement, the New Order regime formulated a concept called ‘Cultural Fence’ (Pagar Budaya) [35], based on the new film law, UU no. 8/1992. [36] Van Heeren states that the purpose of ‘cultural fence’ concept is aimed to ‘diminish the danger of contagion by the spread of information technologies caused by globalization’. The New Order government believed that the villagers were not educated enough to resist the bad negative influence of foreign cultures represented on the screen. Therefore, the purpose of this concept was to protect the villagers from the values and behaviours embedded in global movies. [37] This policy is in line with the concept of film nasional where Indonesian films should represent ‘the real of Indonesian culture’ and kultural edukatif.
On Rural Audiences
Layar tancap spectators were considered second-class citizens who consequently received ‘second class’ entertainment. They did not enjoy new films in a decent regular cinema - usually, the location was an outdoor area such as a football field - or immediately after the films were released. Instead, they watched movies in layar tancap, two years after the films’ theatrical releases due to the restrictions for the shows to only screen re-censored outdated Indonesian films in 16mm, in order to avoid the cannibalisation of regular movie-theatres. [38]
As mentioned by van Heeren, layar tancap’s spectators came from lower or working-class communities. The shows were generally free, because the host would incur the costs for private purposes, or even political campaigns. But sometimes the audience would contribute. Commonly, the villagers would invite the bioskop keliling companies for weddings, circumcisions or any event that garnered familial pride, for which the host would and pay all the expenses and to which the whole village would be invited [39], and as a result the layar tancap business grew rapidly. [40] It was estimated that around 80% of villages were visited by layar tancap shows in the late 1970s. [41]
Related to viewing experiences, prominent director and Perfiki’s Vice Chairperson Slamet Djarot writes of people coming in droves to watch layar tancap because of ‘the instinct of togetherness’ (dorongan naluri kebersamaan) whereby the meaning of layar tancap is extended to become a ‘joint ritual’ (upacara bersama). [42] This argument echoes Mark Jancovich [43] and Bruce Kawin’s [44] concepts of the cult screening as a ‘temple’ or ‘space of rituals’ for celebration.
It has been reported by many newspapers and magazines that layar tancap shows—both the entrepreneurs and the audiences - have developed their own dynamics: screening uncensored films and exhibiting ‘immoral behavior’ such as gang fights. Not only this, but the midnight screenings also created noise pollution. [45]
Framing Layar Tancap
From the early years of the New Order, layar tancap was directed in many ways, toward a political and economic means of regulating the mode of exhibition, and thus many rules such as three-layer censors and 16mm policies were forced upon these works. First, bioskop keliling shows became one of the political means of circulating the New Order programs to remote villages. For example, campaign programs by BKKBN (Badan Kordinasi Keluarga Berencana Nasional, National Family Planning Coordinating Board) starting in the 1970s [46], or even as part of political campaign of the ruling political party, namely Golongan Karya (Golkar, The Functional Group) during general elections.
In fact, since the first year of Perbiki, 1983, Vice President Adam Malik gave the green light to the ‘Cinemas goes to the Villages’ plan, wherein the government asked layar tancap companies to collaborate with the Department of Education and Culture as well as Department of Agriculture in order to disseminate short propaganda and educational films related to development issues such as birth control, transmigration, cooperatives, public health, and the Five-Year Development Programme. [47] Therefore, screening events co-organised by Perbiki members and the Ministries were held. Another significant collaboration with the government also happened in March 1986, when the Department of Information, particularly Direktorat Bina Film dan Rekaman Video (Directorate of Film and Video Recordings), gave layar tancap entrepreneurs eleven documentaries with a promise of 400 similar films to come in the next two years, produced by The Department of Transmigration, The Department of Agriculture, and The Department of Health. It is reported that at the inauguration day of this collaboration between the Department of Information and Perfiki, there was a series of screenings, and a transmigration-themed short movie, Membangun Hari Esok (To Build Tomorrow) was shown as the opening film for cult icon Rhoma Irama’s Satria Bergitar (Guitar Warrior) at Pasekan District, Pacet, West Java. The 2,500 spectators responded positively to the event. [48]
It is reported that in 1982 Perbiki officially supported Golkar, Suharto’s ruling political vehicle to keep him in power, and became a mouthpiece of the campaign in remote places. [49] That is to say that Perbiki had already become a means of disseminating Suharto’s politics since 1977, and second, that the rural audience, as representing the majority of Indonesian citizens, were also part of the political targets for the New Order during general election events.
In December 1983, in their first national congress, Perbiki determined to make themselves the channel of the New Order’s propaganda. [50] Perbiki’s members were consequently prohibited from screening foreign movies and were required to only present films suitable for audiences of 12 years old and above. If an unsuitable film was presented, it would be re-censored. [51] One of the most assertive pre-Perfiki policies on layar tancap is ministerial decree no. 120/1989 issued by Minister of Information. This regulation firmly stated that, for the purpose of mobile cinema screenings, all films should be re-censored at three levels: the film should not be screened until two years after the first time they passed censorship for theatrical releases, the films must be thematically suitable for the villagers, and finally, the films should receive a Surat Tanda Lulus Sensor (Sensor Graduate Certificate) from the Censorship Board - meaning that it should be re-censored for layar tancap purposes. This policy had a direct relationship to the rural audiences. The government needed not only to police the villagers, indoctrinating them into national culture, but also to protect them from the supposed bad influence of foreign movies.
In this context, Acup Zainal, the chairperson of Perbiki, was displeased with the regulation and made a strong statement: “Why do you consider the villagers as second-class citizens?” [52] Zainal interpreted the ruling as an injustice because it discriminated against rural audiences, considering them to be ignorant and uneducated. [53]
By applying the ‘cultural fence’ concept, layar tancap shows were expected to become the spearhead (ujung tombak) of national cinema by way of strengthening the distribution and exhibition network of domestic films to the sub-districts (kecamatan). Additionally, by clearing the way for domestic movies, it was hoped that layar tancap would strengthen national film audiences and thereby stimulate the emergence in small areas of 500 permanent cinema halls specialising in Indonesian films. [54] Thus, the policies of propaganda, censorship, Indonesian-films-only, and radius aksi show that the New Order considered layar tancap ripe for their political purposes and in need of discipline.
Layar Tancap as Counterculture?
Crucially, however, these official measures were partial failures. First, instead of screening Indonesian films that upheld national culture in accordance with the ‘cultural fence’ notion, the movies they showed were mostly exploitation fare, which often imitated Western forms. Second, the mobile companies screened uncensored versions of the films to audiences of all ages. [55] And in many cases, they were reported to screen new local and global films instead of becoming a bastion of the officially sanctioned national distribution network, including ‘no new movies’ policy. [56] For example, as reported in Batara Weekly in 1989, some illegal layar tancap shows screened European, Mandarin, and Indian films freely, including Iron Eagle II (1988) starring Tom Cruise in the villages of Gandul, Sawangan, and Bogor to Krukut and Limo of West Java. They also screened new films that were still playing at regular movie theaters such as Tarzan Raja Rimba (Tarzan the Jungle King, 1989) and Si Gobang Misteri Manusia Bertopeng (Gobang, The Mystery of a Masked Man, 1988) [57]. It is also reported that, although they did try to screen dramas or films full of propaganda, most of the films were exploitation movies, the favourites being action films starring cult icons Barry Prima and Advent Bangun [58], and “mystical horrors”. [59] Barata Weekly underlines that illegal mobile cinemas screened ‘uneducated films’ such as Rimba Panas (globally known as Jungle Heat, 1988), Harga Sebuah Kejujuran (Forceful Impact, 1987), and Jaringan Terlarang (Java Burn, 1987) in some places “…in which the villagers are not ready to accept such kind of films”. [60]
Third, many of the layar tancap owners, both members and non-members of Perfiki, still screened the 35mm format instead of 16mm. Indeed, some layar tancap companies argued that it was more expensive to make 16mm copies rather than 35mm ones [61], their ultimate aim being to discount 16mm versions which, having been heavily censored for all-age audiences, had only a few sexual and sadistic scenes. No action was taken by security officers, police, prosecutors, or village officials for violation of the rules. The official censorship institution established by the regents, TP2FV (Tim Pengawas Peredaran Film Video, or Supervisory Team of Film Distribution and Video), also did not function and take action properly due to the violation of the regulation. [62] Indeed, Pelita Daily reported that there was no attempt from officials to control the quality of the films, because they only needed a local permit from the local district, and in many cases, the owners deceived the officials and society, stating that the films were for all-ages (as required by the law), but in reality, were soft-core pornography or dealt with sadistic images. [63]
Fourthly, instead of becoming the required ‘cultural fence’, the shows were considered to result in an increasing amount of crime and disorderly behavior among the audience. In the 1970s and the 1980s, some newspapers reported cases of drunkenness, gambling, fights between villages, sexual misconduct and excessive noise. [64] For example, in early 1977, Waspada Daily, a local newspaper, wrote an analysis titled ‘The Influence of Traveling Cinema Shows towards Young Generation in Asahan’, concluded that layar tancap shows in Asahan Districts (North Sumatera) significantly increased the number of inter-village gang fights and general unruliness among youngsters, as well as disturbing the peace since the screenings were held in the middle of the night in the centre of the district where the mosques and public housing were located. [65] Moreover, official policies disadvantaged the layar tancap owners, with the result that many spectators protested the shows, even in some instances uprooting the screen in revolt. [66] Thus, it can be argued that layar tancap generated its own sub-culture among the rural spectatorship, and exploitation movies were a significant part of it. These kinds of attitude were the opposite of the official purpose of layar tancap as the ‘cultural fence’ of national culture.
The Layar Tancap Audience and the Politics of Taste
All the four elements discussed above have a direct relation with the rural audience’s resistant tastes. In order to survive, layar tancap owners needed to feed the rural audiences’ demands and wants. In order to attract the villagers, but in defiance of state policy, the shows screened films depicting sexuality, violence and “rough romance”. [67] The parliament member Djati Kusumo wrote that villagers did not need big-budget or complicated films: they just needed to be entertained with simple and easy-to-digest movies. [68]
I thus conclude that these cinematic violations expressed the rural audience’s tastes and needs. The villagers had their own attitudes due to the format changing and re-censoring process. As mentioned earlier, in some cases, related to the villagers’ tastes of exploitation films as well as the needs for watching new films, many spectators asked for 35mm. However, at that time, it was more expensive and rare to find 35mm copies which were still screened in regular cinemas. On the other hand, even if the layar tancap screened 35mm, but if the films did not meet the spectators’ requirements (sexual and sadistic scenes), they will run amok, uproot the poles and pelt stones at the projectors. [69]
Despite the strict regulations, why did some layar tancap still display films containing violence and sexually graphic scenes? There are at least two reasons. First, the official Perfiki claimed that the phenomenon was caused by non-members or, in other words, illegal practices run by independent entrepreneurs who were not part of the Perfiki regulations. Additionally, in many cases, the owners of illegal layar tancap used false names in order to avoid “problems in the field”. [70] Second, some media outlets suggested that irresponsible bureaucrats (“oknum”) from the Department of Information had access to 35mm projectors and indulged in a side business as 35mm projector sellers. [71]
Conclusion
As indicated by Bourdieu and Jenkins, governments and cultural elites attempt to socially construct and police the tastes of their people. In this case, the New Order regime freighted the layar tancap with many regulations in order to make it a ‘cultural fence’ of Indonesia. However, rural spectators and film distributors (in this case: layar tancap owners) have their own politics of tastes, with the result that the attempts of the New Order cultural policies often failed. The traveling cinema companies, both the legal and illegal ones, frequently violated the rules by screening exploitation movies as well as new foreign films. In short, layar tancap screened trashy films because audiences wanted them to: layar tancap shows therefore became arenas for taste battles between opposed interest groups. Here, as is so often the case, exploitation films find themselves at the centre of a struggle.
Layar tancap shows commonly operate in rural and suburban areas. In Perbiki’s first congress, in 1983, an agreement was made between Perbiki and GBPSI, called radius aksi (action radius), which regulated the distribution of these films. [34] At that time, mobile cinema companies were accused of stealing regular cinema’s audience and disturbing the distribution and exhibition circulation by screening new movies. In order to avoid this kind of ‘cannibalism’, there were some decisions made by and for Perbiki, including radius aksi, which decreed that mobile cinema shows should be 5 km away from the nearest movie theatre. This means Perbiki was now forced to run their business in countryside or, at least, suburbs.
The government also used layar tancap as vehicles of propaganda and, in 1993, termed their unique distribution of domestic films as a pagar budaya (cultural fence), to filter the villagers from the negative influence of global films. In February 1993, few months before their official acknowledgement, the New Order regime formulated a concept called ‘Cultural Fence’ (Pagar Budaya) [35], based on the new film law, UU no. 8/1992. [36] Van Heeren states that the purpose of ‘cultural fence’ concept is aimed to ‘diminish the danger of contagion by the spread of information technologies caused by globalization’. The New Order government believed that the villagers were not educated enough to resist the bad negative influence of foreign cultures represented on the screen. Therefore, the purpose of this concept was to protect the villagers from the values and behaviours embedded in global movies. [37] This policy is in line with the concept of film nasional where Indonesian films should represent ‘the real of Indonesian culture’ and kultural edukatif.
On Rural Audiences
Layar tancap spectators were considered second-class citizens who consequently received ‘second class’ entertainment. They did not enjoy new films in a decent regular cinema - usually, the location was an outdoor area such as a football field - or immediately after the films were released. Instead, they watched movies in layar tancap, two years after the films’ theatrical releases due to the restrictions for the shows to only screen re-censored outdated Indonesian films in 16mm, in order to avoid the cannibalisation of regular movie-theatres. [38]
As mentioned by van Heeren, layar tancap’s spectators came from lower or working-class communities. The shows were generally free, because the host would incur the costs for private purposes, or even political campaigns. But sometimes the audience would contribute. Commonly, the villagers would invite the bioskop keliling companies for weddings, circumcisions or any event that garnered familial pride, for which the host would and pay all the expenses and to which the whole village would be invited [39], and as a result the layar tancap business grew rapidly. [40] It was estimated that around 80% of villages were visited by layar tancap shows in the late 1970s. [41]
Related to viewing experiences, prominent director and Perfiki’s Vice Chairperson Slamet Djarot writes of people coming in droves to watch layar tancap because of ‘the instinct of togetherness’ (dorongan naluri kebersamaan) whereby the meaning of layar tancap is extended to become a ‘joint ritual’ (upacara bersama). [42] This argument echoes Mark Jancovich [43] and Bruce Kawin’s [44] concepts of the cult screening as a ‘temple’ or ‘space of rituals’ for celebration.
It has been reported by many newspapers and magazines that layar tancap shows—both the entrepreneurs and the audiences - have developed their own dynamics: screening uncensored films and exhibiting ‘immoral behavior’ such as gang fights. Not only this, but the midnight screenings also created noise pollution. [45]
Framing Layar Tancap
From the early years of the New Order, layar tancap was directed in many ways, toward a political and economic means of regulating the mode of exhibition, and thus many rules such as three-layer censors and 16mm policies were forced upon these works. First, bioskop keliling shows became one of the political means of circulating the New Order programs to remote villages. For example, campaign programs by BKKBN (Badan Kordinasi Keluarga Berencana Nasional, National Family Planning Coordinating Board) starting in the 1970s [46], or even as part of political campaign of the ruling political party, namely Golongan Karya (Golkar, The Functional Group) during general elections.
In fact, since the first year of Perbiki, 1983, Vice President Adam Malik gave the green light to the ‘Cinemas goes to the Villages’ plan, wherein the government asked layar tancap companies to collaborate with the Department of Education and Culture as well as Department of Agriculture in order to disseminate short propaganda and educational films related to development issues such as birth control, transmigration, cooperatives, public health, and the Five-Year Development Programme. [47] Therefore, screening events co-organised by Perbiki members and the Ministries were held. Another significant collaboration with the government also happened in March 1986, when the Department of Information, particularly Direktorat Bina Film dan Rekaman Video (Directorate of Film and Video Recordings), gave layar tancap entrepreneurs eleven documentaries with a promise of 400 similar films to come in the next two years, produced by The Department of Transmigration, The Department of Agriculture, and The Department of Health. It is reported that at the inauguration day of this collaboration between the Department of Information and Perfiki, there was a series of screenings, and a transmigration-themed short movie, Membangun Hari Esok (To Build Tomorrow) was shown as the opening film for cult icon Rhoma Irama’s Satria Bergitar (Guitar Warrior) at Pasekan District, Pacet, West Java. The 2,500 spectators responded positively to the event. [48]
It is reported that in 1982 Perbiki officially supported Golkar, Suharto’s ruling political vehicle to keep him in power, and became a mouthpiece of the campaign in remote places. [49] That is to say that Perbiki had already become a means of disseminating Suharto’s politics since 1977, and second, that the rural audience, as representing the majority of Indonesian citizens, were also part of the political targets for the New Order during general election events.
In December 1983, in their first national congress, Perbiki determined to make themselves the channel of the New Order’s propaganda. [50] Perbiki’s members were consequently prohibited from screening foreign movies and were required to only present films suitable for audiences of 12 years old and above. If an unsuitable film was presented, it would be re-censored. [51] One of the most assertive pre-Perfiki policies on layar tancap is ministerial decree no. 120/1989 issued by Minister of Information. This regulation firmly stated that, for the purpose of mobile cinema screenings, all films should be re-censored at three levels: the film should not be screened until two years after the first time they passed censorship for theatrical releases, the films must be thematically suitable for the villagers, and finally, the films should receive a Surat Tanda Lulus Sensor (Sensor Graduate Certificate) from the Censorship Board - meaning that it should be re-censored for layar tancap purposes. This policy had a direct relationship to the rural audiences. The government needed not only to police the villagers, indoctrinating them into national culture, but also to protect them from the supposed bad influence of foreign movies.
In this context, Acup Zainal, the chairperson of Perbiki, was displeased with the regulation and made a strong statement: “Why do you consider the villagers as second-class citizens?” [52] Zainal interpreted the ruling as an injustice because it discriminated against rural audiences, considering them to be ignorant and uneducated. [53]
By applying the ‘cultural fence’ concept, layar tancap shows were expected to become the spearhead (ujung tombak) of national cinema by way of strengthening the distribution and exhibition network of domestic films to the sub-districts (kecamatan). Additionally, by clearing the way for domestic movies, it was hoped that layar tancap would strengthen national film audiences and thereby stimulate the emergence in small areas of 500 permanent cinema halls specialising in Indonesian films. [54] Thus, the policies of propaganda, censorship, Indonesian-films-only, and radius aksi show that the New Order considered layar tancap ripe for their political purposes and in need of discipline.
Layar Tancap as Counterculture?
Crucially, however, these official measures were partial failures. First, instead of screening Indonesian films that upheld national culture in accordance with the ‘cultural fence’ notion, the movies they showed were mostly exploitation fare, which often imitated Western forms. Second, the mobile companies screened uncensored versions of the films to audiences of all ages. [55] And in many cases, they were reported to screen new local and global films instead of becoming a bastion of the officially sanctioned national distribution network, including ‘no new movies’ policy. [56] For example, as reported in Batara Weekly in 1989, some illegal layar tancap shows screened European, Mandarin, and Indian films freely, including Iron Eagle II (1988) starring Tom Cruise in the villages of Gandul, Sawangan, and Bogor to Krukut and Limo of West Java. They also screened new films that were still playing at regular movie theaters such as Tarzan Raja Rimba (Tarzan the Jungle King, 1989) and Si Gobang Misteri Manusia Bertopeng (Gobang, The Mystery of a Masked Man, 1988) [57]. It is also reported that, although they did try to screen dramas or films full of propaganda, most of the films were exploitation movies, the favourites being action films starring cult icons Barry Prima and Advent Bangun [58], and “mystical horrors”. [59] Barata Weekly underlines that illegal mobile cinemas screened ‘uneducated films’ such as Rimba Panas (globally known as Jungle Heat, 1988), Harga Sebuah Kejujuran (Forceful Impact, 1987), and Jaringan Terlarang (Java Burn, 1987) in some places “…in which the villagers are not ready to accept such kind of films”. [60]
Third, many of the layar tancap owners, both members and non-members of Perfiki, still screened the 35mm format instead of 16mm. Indeed, some layar tancap companies argued that it was more expensive to make 16mm copies rather than 35mm ones [61], their ultimate aim being to discount 16mm versions which, having been heavily censored for all-age audiences, had only a few sexual and sadistic scenes. No action was taken by security officers, police, prosecutors, or village officials for violation of the rules. The official censorship institution established by the regents, TP2FV (Tim Pengawas Peredaran Film Video, or Supervisory Team of Film Distribution and Video), also did not function and take action properly due to the violation of the regulation. [62] Indeed, Pelita Daily reported that there was no attempt from officials to control the quality of the films, because they only needed a local permit from the local district, and in many cases, the owners deceived the officials and society, stating that the films were for all-ages (as required by the law), but in reality, were soft-core pornography or dealt with sadistic images. [63]
Fourthly, instead of becoming the required ‘cultural fence’, the shows were considered to result in an increasing amount of crime and disorderly behavior among the audience. In the 1970s and the 1980s, some newspapers reported cases of drunkenness, gambling, fights between villages, sexual misconduct and excessive noise. [64] For example, in early 1977, Waspada Daily, a local newspaper, wrote an analysis titled ‘The Influence of Traveling Cinema Shows towards Young Generation in Asahan’, concluded that layar tancap shows in Asahan Districts (North Sumatera) significantly increased the number of inter-village gang fights and general unruliness among youngsters, as well as disturbing the peace since the screenings were held in the middle of the night in the centre of the district where the mosques and public housing were located. [65] Moreover, official policies disadvantaged the layar tancap owners, with the result that many spectators protested the shows, even in some instances uprooting the screen in revolt. [66] Thus, it can be argued that layar tancap generated its own sub-culture among the rural spectatorship, and exploitation movies were a significant part of it. These kinds of attitude were the opposite of the official purpose of layar tancap as the ‘cultural fence’ of national culture.
The Layar Tancap Audience and the Politics of Taste
All the four elements discussed above have a direct relation with the rural audience’s resistant tastes. In order to survive, layar tancap owners needed to feed the rural audiences’ demands and wants. In order to attract the villagers, but in defiance of state policy, the shows screened films depicting sexuality, violence and “rough romance”. [67] The parliament member Djati Kusumo wrote that villagers did not need big-budget or complicated films: they just needed to be entertained with simple and easy-to-digest movies. [68]
I thus conclude that these cinematic violations expressed the rural audience’s tastes and needs. The villagers had their own attitudes due to the format changing and re-censoring process. As mentioned earlier, in some cases, related to the villagers’ tastes of exploitation films as well as the needs for watching new films, many spectators asked for 35mm. However, at that time, it was more expensive and rare to find 35mm copies which were still screened in regular cinemas. On the other hand, even if the layar tancap screened 35mm, but if the films did not meet the spectators’ requirements (sexual and sadistic scenes), they will run amok, uproot the poles and pelt stones at the projectors. [69]
Despite the strict regulations, why did some layar tancap still display films containing violence and sexually graphic scenes? There are at least two reasons. First, the official Perfiki claimed that the phenomenon was caused by non-members or, in other words, illegal practices run by independent entrepreneurs who were not part of the Perfiki regulations. Additionally, in many cases, the owners of illegal layar tancap used false names in order to avoid “problems in the field”. [70] Second, some media outlets suggested that irresponsible bureaucrats (“oknum”) from the Department of Information had access to 35mm projectors and indulged in a side business as 35mm projector sellers. [71]
Conclusion
As indicated by Bourdieu and Jenkins, governments and cultural elites attempt to socially construct and police the tastes of their people. In this case, the New Order regime freighted the layar tancap with many regulations in order to make it a ‘cultural fence’ of Indonesia. However, rural spectators and film distributors (in this case: layar tancap owners) have their own politics of tastes, with the result that the attempts of the New Order cultural policies often failed. The traveling cinema companies, both the legal and illegal ones, frequently violated the rules by screening exploitation movies as well as new foreign films. In short, layar tancap screened trashy films because audiences wanted them to: layar tancap shows therefore became arenas for taste battles between opposed interest groups. Here, as is so often the case, exploitation films find themselves at the centre of a struggle.
Footnotes
- Jufry, M., Burhanuddin, Pasaribu, W (Eds) (1992). Indonesian Film Panorama. Jakarta: Permanent Committee of the Indonesian Film Festival, 164.
- Jufry, Burhanuddin, Pasaribu 1992 Heider, K (1991). Indonesian Cinema: National Culture on Screen. Honolulu : University of Hawaii; Said, S (1991). Shadows on the Silver Screen: A Social History of Indonesian Film. Jakarta: Lontar Foundation.
- Van Heeren, K (2012). Contemporary Indonesian Film: Spirits of Reform and Ghosts from the Past. Leiden: KITVL, 2012, 33-34; Sen, K (1994). Indonesian Cinema, Framing the New Order. London & New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd, 72.
- Bourdieu, P (2010). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London and New York: Routledge , xxv)
- Bourdieu 2010, xxiv
- Bourdieu 2010, xxx
- Jenkins, H (1992). Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. London and New York: Routledge, 16-17
- Barker, T (2010). “Historical Inheritance and Film Nasional in post-Reformasi Indonesian Cinema”. Asian Cinema. 21(2), 2010, 7-24.
- Barker, T (2011). A Cultural Economy of the Contemporary Indonesian Film Industry. Singapore: Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore, 73
- Lobato, R (2012). Shadow Economies of Cinema: Mapping Informal Film Distribution. Palgrave Macmillan and British Film Institute, 16-18.
- Heider 1991, 22.
- Fiske, J (2007). “The Cultural Economy of Fandom”. The Cult Film Reader, edited by Mathijs, Ernest and Xavier Mendik, Open University Press, 446-448.
- Imanjaya, E (2009). “The Other Side of Indonesia: New Order’s Indonesian Exploitation Cinema as Cult Films “. COLLOQUY text theory critique 18; Imanjaya, E (2014). “An Introduction: The Significance of Indonesian Cult, Exploitation, and B Movies”. Plaridel Vol. 11 No. 2, August 2014.
- Schaefer, E (1999). Bold! Daring! Shocking! True! : A History of Exploitation Films, 1919-1959. Durham: Duke University Press.
- Mathijs, E, Sexton, J (2011). Cult Cinema: an Introduction. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 147)
- Watson, P (1997). "There's No Accounting for Taste: Exploitation Cinema and the Limits of Film Theory." Trash Aesthetics: Popular Culture and Its Audience, edited by Cartmell, Deborah et al, London: Pluto Press, pp.66-87.
- Jufry, Burhanuddin, Pasaribu 1992, 46-48; Tjasmadi, J (2008). 100 Tahun Sejarah Bioskop di Indonesia. Bandung: Megindo Tunggal Sejahtera, 251-270; Sen 1994; Said 1991.
- Telotte, J (1991). The Cult Film Experience, Beyond All Reason. Austin: University of Texas Press, 10.
- Heider 1991, 39-40.
- Heider, 1991, 40
- Heider 1991, 43-44
- Heider 1991, 42
- Jufry, Burhanuddin, Pasaribu 199, 2, 5.
- Pos Sore, 1977. ‘Pengusaha Bioskop Keliling Bentuk Organisasi’. Pos Sore., 30 July.
- Tempo, 1986. ‘Menu tambahan untuk bioskop lapangan’. Tempo, 12 April.
- ‘Menu tambahan untuk bioskop lapangan’
- Acup Zainal was also known as “the father of Layar Tancap” who served as chairperson during three periods from 1983 to 1996) (Humas Kongres III Perfiki, 1993)
- Humas Kongres III Perfiki (1993). Mengenal Bioskop Keliling Lebih Jauh. Jakarta: DPP Perfiki, 11.
- Humas Kongres III Perfiki 1993, 35-36.
- Suara Karya (1996). ‘Program Perfiki Tinggal Kenangan’, Suara Karya, 1 September. P5.
- Van Heeren 2012, 33-34. My emphasis.
- Sen 1994
- Sen 1994, 72
- Harian Ekonomi Neraca, 1994. ‘Perfiki dan Segmentasi Pasar Film’, Harian Ekonomi Neraca, 28 March.
- Harian Ekonomi Neraca, 1993. Perfiki Harus Jadi Pagar Budaya. Harian Ekonomi Neraca, 1 February. P7.
- “Perfiki Harus Jadi Pagar Budaya”.
- Van Heeren 2012, 35
- Van Heeren 2012, 37.
- Suara Karya, 1997. Persaingan Layar tancap Makin Tak Sehat. Suara Karya, 7 September.
- Humas Kongres III Perfiki 1993, 35
- Sen 1994,72
- Humas Kongres III Perfiki 1993, 13.
- Jancovich, M (2002). “Cult Fictions: Cult Movies, Subcultural Capital and the Production of Cultural Distinctions” in Cultural Studies, Volume 16, Number 2, 1 March 2002, pp. 306-322.
- Telotte 1991.
- Media Indonesia, 1989. “Menanggap Layar tancap Murah Meriah”. Media Indonesia, 28 August.
- Berita Yudha, 1976.’ BKKBN Tingkatkan Pengadaan Film2 Penerangan KB’. Berita Yudha, 8 October.
- Pos Film, 1978.’ Wakil Presiden Sambut Program Film Nasional Masuk Desa: Bioskop Belum Mampu Beri Hiburan Buat Rakyat Kecil’. Pos Film, 16 July; Pos Sore, 1978. ‘Film Masuk Desa Direstui Wakil Presiden Adam Malik’. Pos Sore. 12 July.
- ‘Menu tambahan untuk bioskop lapangan.’
- Humas Kongres III Perfiki 1993, 40.
- ’Menu tambahan untuk bioskop lapangan’
- ‘Menu tambahan untuk bioskop lapangan’
- Humas Kongres III Perfiki 1993, 65.
- Humas Kongres III Perfiki 1993.
- Van Heeren 2012.
- Humas Kongres III Perfiki 1993.
- Humas Kongres III Perfiki 1993
- Barata, 1989. ‘Layar tancap Merusak Pengedaran Film Bioskop’. Barata, Week 1, September.
- Humas Kongres III Perfiki, 1993, 56.
- Angkatan Bersenjata, 1989. ‘Menertibkan dan Mendayagunakan Bioskop Layar tancap’. Angkatan Bersenjata, 4 November.
- ‘Layar tancap Merusak Pengedaran Film Bioskop’
- Pikiran Rakyat, 1993. ‘Perfiki, Hidup Enggan Mati Tak Mau’. Pikiran Rakyat, 5 September.
- ‘Layar tancap Merusak Pengedaran Film Bioskop’.
- ’Bioskop Keliling di Jabar’.
- Pelita, 1977. ‘Bioskop Keliling di Jabar Merusak’. Pelita. 13 August; Berita Buana 1976, ‘Bioskop Keliling untuk Menjangkau Pedesaan’, Berita Buana. 15 December.
- Waspada Medan, 1977. ‘Pengaruh Bioskop Keliling thd Generasi Muda Asahan’. Waspada Medan, 25 January.
- ‘Menanggap Layar tancap Murah Meriah’; ‘Persaingan Layar tancap Makin Tak Sehat’
- ’Pengaruh Bioskop Keliling thd Generasi Muda Asahan’.
- Humas Kongres III Perfiki 1993, 19.
- ‘Menanggap Layar tancap Murah Meriah’
- ‘Persaingan Layar tancap Makin Tak Sehat’
- ‘Persaingan Layar tancap Makin Tak Sehat’