“Gak ada satu wacana yang bisa menjelaskan posisi perempuan di filem Indonesia. Karena selama ini, sebagian besar filem-filem yang diproduksi masih menggunakan perspektif laki-laki. Semua filem gue memang tidak atau memiliki pesan moral. Karena satu pesannya: Equality!”
Begitulah, pernyataan Nurkurniati Aisyah Dewi atau Nia Dinata saat ditanyakan pandangannya tentang posisi perempuan dalam filem Indonesia. Baginya, filem seharusnya memberi ruang kepada posisi yang sejajar dalam melihat perbedaan-perbedaan dalam masyarakat. Sutradara kelahiran Maret 1970 ini, memilih filem sebagai salah satu cara untuk menjadikannya sebagai “Story Driven” kepada masyarakat.
Menempuh pendidikan jurnalistik di Elizabethtown College, Pennsylvania dan kemudian melanjutkan studi produksi filem di New York University, Amerika Serikat. Perempuan yang suka “ngomong” ini menjadikan isu-isu yang melawan arus sebagai pilihan tema dalam filem-filemnya. “Gue me-represent filem-filem, karakter-karakter, cerita-cerita, yang memang berada di luar lingkungan atau lingkaran status quo”, ungkapnya.
Pada 17 April 2010, Jurnal Footage mendapat kesempatan untuk melakukan wawancara di sela-sela waktu yang sangat padat dari perempuan super sibuk ini. Kami menemuinya di Pacific Place, di mana ia bersama Kalyana Shira Foundation mengadakan KidFest 2010—sebuah program festival filem anak-anak internasional di Jakarta. Hadir dalam wawancara ini Hafiz (Pimpinan Redaksi), Akbar Yumni (Redaksi) dan Syaiful Anwar yang merekam pembicaran dengan kamera video. Wawancara dilakukan di ruang merokok Blitz Megaplex, Pacific Place-Jakarta.
Hafiz: Nia, Jurnal Footage mau membuat semacam pendokumentasian, seri wawancara dengan beberapa sutradara dan pelaku-pelaku filem di Indonesia, baik generasi baru, maupun generasi lama. Kita mau membaca bagaimana filem Indonesia sekarang dan masa lalunya. Kami memang mencoba selektif mencari orang-orang yang layak untuk diwawancara. Mereka adalah orang-orang yang kami anggap penting dalam sejarah. Salah satunya, lu sebagai generasi baru pembuat filem. Kami merasa perlu tahu, apa sih yang ada dikepala lu? Kami selama ini hanya tahu, “Wah Nia Dinata hebat”, dapat piala ini dan itu. Kita nggak pengen ke situ. Mungkin yang pertama, boleh cerita dulu kenapa lu bisa nyemplung di dunia filem?
Nia Dinata: Kenapa gue nyemplung di dunia filem? Sebenarnya gue tipe orang yang kurang aktif waktu kecilnya. Maksudnya begini, ketika anak-anak lain senang main di luar yang lebih sifatnya fisik, gue kurang suka hal-hal yang berbau physical. Dan itu kelihatan banget ketika gue kecil. Gue merasa banget kalau misalnya, “Kok gue lebih senang ke dalam?” Lebih senang melakukan hal-hal yang baca buku. Gue lebih senang nonton. Nonton… Mungkin karena zaman dulu experience-nya luar biasa banget ya. Kita belum ada sinepleks. Kalau ke bioskop, zaman gue kecil di Blok M—sekarang Blok M Plaza—dulu New Garden Hall. Itu dekat tinggal gue di jalan Bulungan, di depan SMA 9 dan SMA 11. Kalau jalan kan dekat, dan jalan kaki. Layarnya besar banget, lebih besar dari sinepleks. Terus curtain-nya emas warnanya. Terus dia keangkat pelan-pelan gitu… Gelap. Itu sudah merupakan pengalaman tersendiri buat gue. Dari mulai gelap, terus curtain-nya keangkat aja, buat gue itu magic! Nontonya yang dulu-dulu, mulai dari Superman I (Richard Donner, 1978—Red.), masih Christopher Reeve, terus udah gitu, Badai Pasti Berlalu (Teguh Karya, 1977—Red.). Gue ikut sama tante, walau pun bukan umur gue. Filemnya Teguh Karya, Ibunda (1986). Pokoknya, yang tante-tante gue nonton, gue ikut. Jadi mungkin karena itu menarik buat gue aktivitas itu. Sama baca buku. Gue gak banyak teman, dan lebih senang yang seperti itu. Terus gue pindah ke Arab. Di Saudi Arabia, sebuah negara yang antah-berantah buat gue. Gue umurnya 7 tahun waktu itu. Lagi senang-senangnya diajak ke bioskop. Terus di sana gak ada bioskop. Terus perempuan kalau pergi ke pasar, harus ditutup-tutupin. Gue susah banget. Gue gak bisa pakai celana pendek, rok pendek, dan kaos tangan buntung. Gue lebih tambah males lagi dong keluar rumah. Untungnya di kompleks perumahan ekspatriat itu ada perpustakaan, isinya banyak video Betamax. Dan ada perpustakaan buku. Jadi kita bisa nontonlah… Anak-anak bisa nonton. Karena tidak ada kontrol dari orang tua, akhirnya gue nonton filem-filem seperti Kramer vs Kramer (Robert Benton, 1979—Red.). (Tertawa kecil). Pokoknya kebanyakan filem-filemnya Jack Nicholson yang zaman itu (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest-1975, The Passenger-1975, The Last Tycoon-1976, Goin’ South-1978, The Shining-1980—Red.). Jadi, kayaknya gue mungkin dewasa sebelum waktunya. Lebih tahu urusan orang cerai. Dan gue nontonnya bisa berulang-ulang. Itu Kramer vs Kramer, karena cuma gue benar-benar suka banget. Gak tahu kenapa. Tapi dari Sound of Music (Robert Wise, 1965), The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming, 1939) juga mereka punya. Collection anak-anak. Tapi udah capek dengan itu. Karena gak banyak juga koleksinya. Gue senang banget nonton filem-filem Meryl Streep dan Jack Nicholson.
Hafiz: Pokoknya tokohnya . . .
Nia Dinata: Pokoknya tokohnya itu. Gue ingat mukanya ini, nah itu dia yang gue tonton. Kemudian gue merasa gue bisa mengkhayal abis itu. Sudah jadi hobi gue. Tapi gak pernah tahu sebenarnya bahwa di belakang itu ada sebuah proses. Gue cuma penasaran, “Kok bisa ya… Orang bikin sesuatu, yang orang lain tonton, terus bisa terbayangkan karakternya”. Padahal filemnya udah abis. Justru gue juga mikir, “Kalau kita berada di situasinya gimana ya?” Apalagi gue dari anak-anak suka sama . . . Siapa yang bapaknya Angelina Jolie? (Jon Voight—Red.) The Champs (karya Franco Zeffirelli, 1979—merupakan karya remake dari sutradara King Vidor dengan judul sama pada 1931—Red.). “Kalau kita situasinya kayak begitu, gimana ya?” Itu membuat khayalan gue berkembang biak. Nah, seteleh gue remaja balik ke Jakarta, gue akhirnya jauh lebih senang nonton video. Waktu itu filem Indonesia tahun 1983-an, kan ngeseks semua judul-judulnya. Kita gak pernah lagi bisa nonton filem. Akhirnya, cuma mengandalkan Betamax-betamax video itu diulang saja. Sampai hafal dialognya, semua shot-shot, sampai gue sadari, “Itu namanya shot”. Ketika SMA sudah mulai tahu. Dulu kan belum ada internet. Gue lulus SMA tahun 1988. Generasi 1980-an. “Mau ke mana nih? Kalau gue pengen bikin yang kayak begitu, gue harus belajarnya apa (di mana—red)?”, itu belum tahu. Ketika SMA, akhirnya baru menyadari, dan gue sudah tahu banget bahwa pengen arahnya ke situ. Tahunya cuma itu saja.
Hafiz: Pesonanya apa sih?
Nia Dinata: Pesonanya? Gue merasa… kayak begini, seperti nonton The Champs itu. Gue gak pernah suka sama tinju. Setiap orang nonton tinju Muhammad Ali di TV, gue gak suka. Tapi, ketika gue nonton The Champs, gue bukannya jadi suka sama tinju, tapi jadi tahu, “Wah, pada tinju itu ada sesuatu yang berbahaya pada kesehatannya, in the end of the day… Terus, dia sudah seperti rock star”. Ternyata masalah hidupnya banyak juga. Pesonanya itu. Gue orang yang tertarik sama… Apa ya?… Drama-drama nya itu loh. Itu yang menjadi pesona. Drama-drama kehidupan dan karakter-karakternya.
Hafiz: Setelah itu apa? Fase berikutnya apa?
Nia Dinata: Dulu gak punya video. Gak semudah orang punya video dan home video. Handphone gak ada. Jadi, pesona gue itu. Hanya bisa diterjemahin lewat tulisan. Gue ngarang-ngarang cerita filem sendiri karena gue suka nulis. Kebetulan gue di sekolah orang yang seneng belajar. Gue bukan orang yang…, “Pokoknya anak baik-baik lah”. (tertawa). Gue ingin memperdalam menulis. Sementara pelajaran mengarang di sekolah, Bahasa Indonesia kan, zaman gue SMP-SMA itu, tidak dibiasakan mengarang yang sesuai dengan apa yang kita mau. Pasti kita mengarang liburan sekolah. Setiap naik kelas sama saja…, “Liburan sekolah ngapain?” Aduh…., padahal khayalan kita sudah banyak yang lebih dari itu kan?
Hafiz: Tidak membangun fantasi?
Nia Dinata: Ya. Tidak membangun fantasi. Jadi gue merasa kalau kuliah mau belajar nulis. Gue mau menulis yang lebih meng-ini-kan fantasi dan teknik menulis. Makanya gue kuliah ambilnya jurnalistik. Gue ambil jurnalistik, karena juga pikirannya masih “pekerjaan”. Waktu itu mau kuliah di IKJ (Institut Kesenian Jakarta), tapi teman-teman gue gak ada yang ambil IKJ. Gue dari SMA 34, semua teman-teman gue bilang, “Gila kalau mau masuk IKJ!”
Hafiz: Masuk Sarang Singa?
Nia Dinata: Sarang Singa. Terus, ya sudah gue ambil jurnalistik. Memang sudah pengen banget bisa mandiri. Bisa ngatur hidup gue sendiri. Dan gue pengen banget bisa kuliah di Amerika. Karena dari situ gue mau mempelajari filem. Di situlah semua filem-filem yang gue tonton (berasal). Belum nonton filem-filem Eropa. Tahun segitu belum lah. SMA kita kan gak ada, gak bisa akses lah, gak ada DVD juga. Pas gue ke sana, gue masuk sekolah Journalism. Barulah di situ gue ber-roommate-an dengan orang Italia, namanya Francesca. Nah si Italia ini mengambil filem. Dia yang meng-introduce gue ke filem-filem Italia. Dia bilang, “Nia lu harus beli ini, filem-filem Italia, Federico Fellini. Kalau dari Prancis, lu harus cobain nonton Jacques Tati”. “Filem apa ini?”, pas gue tonton ternyata, “Gila!”. Gue benar-benar, “Haaaa…! Ini ada dunia lain ternyata”. Di universitas gue juga ada kine klub, kalau hari Sabtu-Minggu muterin filem-filem dari Iran. Filem pertama Zhang Yimou (Red Sorghum, 1987), gue nontonnya pas kuliah. Ju Dou (Zhang Yimou, 1990), gue nontonnya di layar lebar. Karena dibahas sama kine klubnya. Gue menemukan dunia yang excited. Karena habis nonton filem ternyata bisa membahasnya. Dan orang-orang persepsinya beda-beda ternyata. Orang bisa berdebat, interpretasinya banyak, wah gila! Kayaknya gue menemukan sesuatu yang gak usah dibayar pun gue juga mau mengerjakan itu. Gue tanpa dipaksa juga mau masuk kelas yang kerjanya menginterpretasi filem. Jadi, sambil ambil jurnalistik, gue juga ambil pelajaran bebasnya Cinema Studies. Belum pegang kamera. Cuma membaca, How To Read a Film. Membaca filem segala macem. Walaupun tidak menjadi major gue, tapi gue bisa mengkhayal sendiri. Gue bisa membuat report yang menurut interpretasi gue apa yang sudah gue tonton. Kerjanya cuma nonton filem dan bikin laporan, udah gitu. Gue pikir, “Oh ya, setelah ini gue harus mengetahui hal-hal yang lebih teknis”. Ketika orang lain nonton segala macam Blockbuster, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mission Impossible, si roommate gue gak mau nonton yang itu. Roommate gue selalu mengajak ke suatu tempat yang namanya Angelica, Art House Cinema. Kita nonton filem-filem yang bukan mainstream. Waktu kecil kan nontonnya filem-filem Hollywood, gue kayak langsung mendapatkan referensi yang berbeda. Dan gue pikir, “Ya udah, ini yang pengen gue lakuin. Gue pengen belajarin soal ini. Gue mau belajar dengan serius”.
Hafiz: Terus kapan mulai membuat?
Nia Dinata: Setelah selesai sekolah jurnalistik, gue kuliah filem. Benar-benar Film Production. Karena duit-nya sudah gak cukup, gue gak bisa ambil master. Jadi gue ambil program Film Production, 1 tahun. Benar-benar pegang kamera, 16 mm, sound, dan itu semuanya kerjanya di-routary. Tugasnya dari mulai bikin video klip, filem pendek, filem eksprimental, sampai filem lulus-lulusan yang harus bikin filem pendek 15 menit. Drama dan naratif. Jadi gue pikir, “Wah gila, gue sudah merasa apa saja sudah gue lakuin deh”. Selama di sana, ada orang lain bikin filem, gue sampai ngangkatin kabel, megangin mic boom pun gue mau. Pokoknya gue terlibat di dalam proses itu.
Hafiz: Apa yang lu bayangkan tentang filem. Waktu kecil, ketika layar itu diangkat, itu kan magic. Gue juga mengalami hal yang sama waktu masih kecil, ketika mulai kebuka.
Nia Dinata: Layarnya keangkat…(tertawa kecil)
Hafiz: Layar Emas itu…
Nia Dinata: Itu benar-benar Layar Emas namanya…
Hafiz: Tiba-tiba lu membuatnya. Apa yang lu rasakan di sebuah dunia yang lu ada di balik Layar Emas itu?
Nia Dinata: Ohhh… Gitu ya. Tentu saja kalau bikin filem pendek, waktu di kelas, bikin musik, eksperimental, sampai ngedit di Steenbeck Machine, ditontonnya cuma di kelas doang. Tapi ketika filem ujian gue, diputer di Tribeca, gedungnya Robert de Niro. Sekolah nyewa untuk anak-anak yang lulus. Itu bukan di sinepleks. Pertama kali, gue langsung ngerasain diputerin. Rasanya begini, “Aduuh, filemnya mau ditonton”. Gue justru yang rasanya ketakutan dan malu. Karena semua murid-murid dan dosen . . . My first experience . . . Yang nonton dosen, murid-murid, alumni, semuanya jago-jago. Habis itu kita pasti ke depan untuk Q and A (tanya-jawab). Dipertanyakan, “Kenapa lu bikin ini, kenapa lo begitu?”. Gue justru malu dan takut, tapi ada sedikit rasa excited juga. Filem gue benar tentang anak Indonesia. Filem ujian gue judulnya Scissors. Gue sampai nyari pemainnya dari Asia, gue ajarin Bahasa Indonesia, walaupun dialognya cuma sedikit. Dialognya berantem doang, kakak adik yang rebutan majalah Bobo. Majalahnya minta kirimin dari Jakarta, terus ibunya marah. Ibunya cuma kelihatan kakinya. Terus majalahnya digunting-gunting. Dua anak ini gak dapat apa-apa. Filemnya hitam-putih. Gue merasa ada sesuatu yang beda aja dari filem gue, yang membuat ada rasa berani. Pas layarnya kebuka, “Aaaaaaahhhh..”.
Hafiz: Dari mana dapat inspirasi filem seperti itu? Maaf, gue belum nonton filemnya ya…
Nia Dinata: Ada VHS-nya doang…
Hafiz: Pengen nonton gue…
Nia Dinata: Ntar gue kirim
Hafiz: Ketika ada “gunting menggunting” itu, gue langsung membayangkan Hitchcock.
Nia Dinata: Hitchcock? Ya. Karena referensinya Hicthcock. Gue suka Hitchcock. Tapi itu kejadian yang terjadi sama diri gue. Jadi, based on my experience yang menurut gue itu traumatis banget. Waktu kecil, majalah Bobo terbit setiap hari Selasa. Pasti pagi-pagi gue udah nungguin, di depan pagar rumah. Orangnya naik sepeda. Gue selalu membaca, pengen menjadi the first one yang membaca. Nah, adik gue yang cowok ini selalu ngerebutnya dari tangan gue. Jadi selalu setiap pagi Selasa, sebelum berangkat sekolah pasti berantem sama adik gue. Setelah berapa bulan kali ya, kali emak gue capek juga ya bok, lihat anaknya berantem. Tanpa ngomong ba-bi-bu, dia gunting di depan gue. Gue ngelihatnya dari bawah. Ngelihatnya kayak . . . Semuanya beterbangan. Terus adik gue mah cuek aja kali. Emang dasar anak umur segitu. Cuma pengen bikin gue kesel. Tapi abis itu, “Haaaa terus gue gak bisa baca”. Ngerti gak sih? Itu yang traumatis buat gue. Makanya gue bikin filem buat ujian. Pas gue nonton Hitchcock, gue langsung, “Wah ini nih yang gue pernah rasakan”. Traumanya yang kayak gini, “Jeng . . . Jeng..”. (tertawa). Datang di-slow mo (slow-motion), kayaknya gunting, “Keeekkkkk”…
Hafiz: Terus, ketika lu balik ke sini, lu memulai Kalyana Shira?
Nia Dinata: Ya nggak lah. Gue balik kesini, kerja jurnalistik.
Hafiz: OK. Ceritakan dulu….
Nia: Gue kerja jurnalistik di Seputar Indonesia (RCTI) tahun 1993. Ya, sebagai pengalaman gak ada lah. Pengalaman yang gak berguna buat kita. Tahun 1993 zaman Orde Baru, setiap gue ngeliput sesuatu, gue edit, diedit sama editornya lagi. “Gak bisa begini, gini… gini…”. Pers belum kayak sekarang. Ya, gak betah lah gue. Akhirnya gue berpikir, mendingan kerja di PH (Production House) bikin iklan. Daripada gue bikin sesuatu yang serius dan menurut gue harusnya kita jadi “watch dog” (pers), “kok kita gak jadi ‘watch dog’ nih?”. Harus ngeliput yang bagus-bagusnya aja zaman itu.
Hafiz: Jadi berapa lama lu kerja di situ?
Nia Dinata: Lama lah. Sampai tahun 1999, bikin iklan, video klip. Gara-gara itulah gue kenal sama anak-anak yang lulusan IKJ, anak-anak iklan, klip, musik, yang akhirnya kita jadi berteman. Kemudian bisa jadi partner dalam membuat filem.
Hafiz: Filem pertama lu kan…
Nia Dinata: Ca Bau Kan…(2002)
Hafiz: Ca Bau Kan… Itu bagaimana? Pertama keluar, membuat isu tentang minoritas, kenapa?
Nia Dinata: Sebenarnya gue sudah mulai menulis ide Arisan sih. Tapi itu keluarnya belakangan. Gue lihat buku itu (Ca Bau Kan), persis banget buku-buku yang gue suka selama kuliah. Selama gue kuliah, selain mengambil Cinema Studies, tetapi juga mengambil… karena jurnalistik, kita harus mengambil literature juga. Kuliah wajibnya itu harus mengambil literature. Boleh memilih, antara mainstream literature yang klasik, atau minority literature. Gak tahu kenapa, gue milihnya minority. Karena gue banyak teman-teman yang minoritas, kayak Latin American, Chinese American, Korean American, dan Indian. Menurut gue, pengalaman yang ditulis sama penulis minoritas, mengenai orang minoritas, di negara yang mayoritasnya bukan dari race dia, itu menarik. Menarik banget. Buku-buku yang klasik selalu “bicara” individual, eksistensi seorang seperti; Camus (Albert Camus), Kafka (Franz Kafka)… gitu-gitu kan.
Hafiz: Aktualisasi diri…
Nia Dinata: Aktualisasi diri. Nah penulis minoritas itu, gimana mau mengaktualisasikan dirinya? Sebelum dia bisa mengaktualisasikan dirinya, dia harus berdamai dulu dengan kondisinya yang minoritas. Kondisi yang selalu dimarjinalkan. Apalagi Amerika tahun segitu…. Rasis abis. Kondisi yang selalu mengalami perlakuan-perlakuan rasis, dari lingkugannya. Jadi, sebelum dia mengaktualisasikan diri, dia harus dealing sama that kind of emotional feelings. Nah, itu banyak sekali gue baca. Dan gue jatuh cinta banget dengan literatur minoritas gitu. Waktu gue baca Ca Bau Kan, gue gak tahu siapa Remy Silado. Gue pikir dia orang minoritas, ya walaupun Manado sih. Minoritas juga kan. Mayoritas kita kan Jawa ya…? Terus gue merasa, “gila ya, ini orang bisa mendeskripsikan sebegitu jelasnya sebuah kultur minoritas yang selama gue grow up di tahun 1980-an, jarang sekali dibicarakan. Dia membicarakan dengan sangat visual. Buku itu sangat visual. Jadi gue terbayanglah segala macam. Gue teringat sama sastra-sastra minoritas yang gue baca waktu kuliah. Gue pikir, “Wah ini kalau difilemin bisa menjadi sesuatu yang menarik. Akhirnya baru gue mencari dia.
Hafiz: Kalau gue lihat, karya-karya lu selanjutnya selalu berpijak di wilayah itu.
Nia Dinata: Oh gitu ya…
Hafiz: Wilayah minoritas, seperti; Ca Bau Kan dan Arisan (2003). Sebenarnya perspektif minoritas bagi lu itu apa sih? Dalam konteks keindonesiaan kita. Maksud gue, di kita kan sebenarnya stigma minoritas itu kan juga laten seperti, “lu Cina, lu Gay atau Jawa lu!”
Nia Dinata: Pokoknya dari negeri seberang lah…
Hafiz: Menurut lu gimana sebenarnya?
Nia Dinata: Kita yang hidupnya anak-anak 1980an itu kan pasti… Grow up banyak sekali yang lebih ke Jawa. Sementara gue mungkin darah Jawa nya mungkin cuma 1/8 kali ya. Lebih banyak Padang (Minang) dan Jawa Barat (Sunda). Tapi apa yang gue baca waktu pas SMA, kita tidak diajarin untuk membaca novel-novel. “Di pelajaran Bahasa Indonesia kita apa sih?!”
Hafiz: Membaca sastra yang baik….
Nia Dinata: Iya. Gak diajarin itu. Terus apa yang kita lihat di TV selalu tentang Jawa waktu itu. Semua menteri-menteri kita kebanyakan Jawa. Presiden kita juga Jawa melulu gitu, kan? Jadi, kayaknya negara kita ini sangat Javacentris. Sementara itu gue merasa banyak budaya-budaya Indonesia lain yang sangat menarik. Kalau dilihat dari konteks Indonesia, gue merasa apa yang gue lihat, dan dengar. Gue baca selama ini sangat Javacentris. Bahkan gue baca pertama kali bukunya Pramoedya Ananta Toer, waktu kuliah kan disana, gue beli dari Yale waktu lagi nengokin teman gue. Di toko buku Yale tetralogi-nya Pram gue beli semua. Itu masih javacentris. Dari situlah gue mulai minta dikirimin buku Para Priyayi (Umar Kayam), apa saja yang lagi bagus. Tapi itu semuanya javacentris, Fiz.
Hafiz: Indonesia adalah Jawa kan? (tertawa)
Nia Dinata: Nggak lah! (tertawa).Waktu pas gue baca itu (Ca Bau Kan), walaupun settingnya di Jawa, tapi dia membicarakan orang Tionghoa. Itulah yang menarik. Magnetnya di situ buat gue. Soal keminoritasan Indonesia yang lain, ya… Seharusnya equal ya… Karena itulah yang membentuk Indonesia—perbedaan-perbedaan dan suku-suku. Kalau soal minoritas seksual, agama, segala macem, Indonesia adalah “The larges country moslem in the world”. Selalu begitu. Padahal banyak agama-agama lain juga. Karena kita orangnya banyak, 250 juta, kalau misalnya 5% nya saja, kan sebenarnya banyak! Jadi gue rasa itu yang perlu, dan merasa senang “menggarap” itu, dibandingkan menggarap hal-hal yang sudah kuat. Karena sudah menjadi kekuatan tersendiri, dan sudah mendapat ruang tersendiri. Jadi, yang belum mendapat ruang dan belum mendapat kekuatan, menurut gue itu lebih menarik.
Hafiz: Ada analogi begini, tentang konsep sebuah kultur (kebudayaan), terutama konsep modernitas. Biasanya konsep modernitas itu lahir dari konsep-konsep perlawanan dalam artian melawan dominasi. Seperti misalnya dari dulu perubahan-perubahan yang terjadi dalam semua kebudayaan dunia, selalu awalnya periferi (pinggiran). Pusat biasanya status quo. Apakah konsep perubahan yang lu maksud dengan cara mengangkat isu-isu minoritas atau isu di luar lingkaran status quo ini, menjadi sangat penting dalam berbahasa lewat filem untuk mengaktualisasikan lu sebagai orang yang modern, orang yang berpikir maju tentang konteks manusia (kemanusiaan)?
Nia Dinata: Wah, gue mikirnya gak sampai sejauh itu. Justru mikir gini, OK. Mereka memang minoritas. Justru lingkungan gue seperti itu, lingkungan keberagaman. Gue gak bergaul, kebanyakan teman gue kebanyakan bukan orang Jawa. Geng gue cewek-cewek, misalnya dari SMA kita tetap temenan sampai sekarang, gak ada orang Jawanya.
Hafiz: Itu kenapa?
Nia Dinata: Gak tahu kenapa. Itu natural aja. Dari kita itu, kalau gak orang Padang, Padang lagi ya bok (tertawa kecil)… Kalau gak orang Makassar. Bervariasi. Coba lu bayangin. Jadi dari situ kita menghasilkan perempuan-perempuan yang nyablak—yang gak sesuai dengan etika budaya Jawa.
Hafiz: Javacentris
Nia Dinata: Terus itu dari yang teman-teman SMA, terus kerja. Di space kerja gue, ternyata gak selalu “bergaul” dengan orang-orang heteroseksual. Jadi, banyak orang-orang yang preference seksualnya berbeda sama gue. Dan setelah gue pikir-pikir lagi, ternyata bukan hanya di tempat gue kerja. Ternyata oom-oom gue juga banyak yang gay gitu loh. Gue grow up waktu kecil dengan mereka.
Hafiz: Dan mereka diakui?
Nia Dinata: Diakui. Kenapa gak? Kita semua tidak usah dilihat dari itu. Tidak usah dilihat dari suku, atau pun sexual preference, atau pun agama. Kenapa gak bisa diangkat ya? Gak bisa di include di dalam karya yang kita bikin. Sekarang gue sudah punya keluarga sendiri, menikah dengan orang keturunan Tionghoa. Itu sangat diversity. Lingkungan gue itu sangat diversity. Dan gue merasa natural aja. Gue portray that kind of diversity di dalam karya gue.
Hafiz: Pertanyaan gue balik ke filem. Menurut lu industri filem sekarang ini gimana sih?
Nia Dinata: Sekarang? Gila lu, jumping abis!
Hafiz: Gue mau komparasi. Lu kan mengalami melihat filem tahun 1980an. Waktu masih kecil. Kemudian terpesona dengan filem itu. Lu akhirnya masuk menjadi pembuatnya. Sekarang nyemplung di situ dan bekerja di wilayah industri itu.
Nia Dinata: Kalau secara umum sekarang sebenarnya, mungkin kita berada di posisi yang sama. Zaman awal tahun 1980an… ya late seventies, filem Indonesia banyak di bioskop. Hampir setiap weekend ada filem Indonesia baru. Orang-orang juga senang untuk datang ke bioskop untuk nonton filem Indonesia. Gue malah merasa kalau kondisi gue agak unfortunate. Karena tempat gue nonton cuma di New Garden Hall. Tapi sebenarnya kalau gue ngomong sama orang-orang lain, yang hidupnya di tahun segitu, kita bisa kok nonton ada filem yang sifatnya “cultish”. Jadi gue kayak kesaring. Sekarang gue juga riset, “…Oohh ternyata di tahun segini ada filem ini”. Itu beragam banget. Mulai dari Ibunda, Secangkir Kopi Pahit. Gue diajak sama tante-tante gue nontonnya yang kayak begituan. Waktu itu gue gak tahu bahwa ada filem Indonesia lain di luar sana. Baru tahu setelah semua berlalu. Ternyata, mulai dari silat, action-action figure Eva Arnaz, Barry Prima, mempunyai cult follower tersendiri. Jadi, kalau gue bilang sekarang variasinya hampir sama seperti dulu. Mau filem remaja ada, komedi seks ada, hantu-hantu ada, filem yang serius ada. Kita punya variasi yang sangat beragamlah sekarang.
Perempuan Punya Cerita Trailer
Hafiz: Menjadi sutradara itu apa sih?
Nia Dinata: Bagi gue menjadi sutradara ya… Kita bisa translating vision sama story. Gue orang yang senang menyutradari filem yang gue tulis. Jadi, gue merasa bahwa ide script writer, film director, filmmaker; mereka mentransfer cerita. Mereka punya urgency untuk menceritakan sesuatu. Mereka adalah storyteller. Walaupun gue nge–produce dokumenter, gue seorang story driven. Gue senang baca cerita. Senang mengkhayal. Buat gue, kita jadi tetap hidup karena kita masih punya cerita dan masih mau dengerin cerita orang. That’s thing as alive. Gue merasa kita itu storyteller.
Hafiz: Dalam beberapa wawancara, ketemu kawan-kawan, ini pertanyaan yang sama sebenarnya. Menurut gue seorang sutradara adalah pembuat cultural statement. Seorang yang membuat pernyataan kultural di ranah publik. Tahun 1995, sempat ngobrol dengan Teguh Karya, di kepala gue membayangkan menjadi seorang sutradara itu… jauh. Karena posisi dia sangat penting. Karena dia meresap berbagai aspek di hal-hal yang kultural. Pertanyaan ini jadi penting bagi gue, di Jurnal Footage. Karena memang ada semacam kondisi filem jaman sekarang yang kami lihat. Terus, pertanyaan-pertanyaan kita ketika jatuhnya filem-filem Indonesia tahun 1990an. Kita kehilangan statement-statement cultural dari para auteur. Menurut lu bagaimana?
Nia Dinata: Seorang sutradara atau pembuat filme itu harus berangkat dari cerita. Apakah cerita itu kemudian menjadi sebuah statement cultural, itu bagaimana publik yang menilainya. Bagaimana impact dari karya itu, terhadap kondisi budaya masyarakatnya di saat itu. Kalau kita bermula dengan sesutau yang cultural, bermula dengan, “Oh gue mau bikin dari statement cultural. oh gue gak ada cerita. Gue cuma mau bikin statement cultural!”. Gue rasa itu menjadi sebuah pretensi saja. Kalau buat gue pribadi, misalnya gue bikin Ca Bau Kan, the round-nya, magnetnya dari mengadaptasi novel itu menjadi skrip dan menjadi filem. Bukan karena karena statement cultural. Tapi the first thing adalah… Ada suara dari kelompok minoritas. Ini ada cerita yang orang itu harus tahu. Orang-orang harus semakin banyak tahu… Tahu cerita ini. Harus mendengar. Bisa membaca dari buku, dan kemudiaan melihatnya, kalau dia sudah menjadi filem. Gue bikin Arisan, bukan karena mau bikin statement cultural tentang gay. Gue merasa bahwa, “Oh cerita friendship ini penting, ini harus diceritain nih”. Seorang yang gay itu tidak mesti sesuai dengan stereotype gay—kerjanya harus di salon, mendapatkan treatment yang… Agak sedikit rush treatment dari society-nya. Dari segala macam. Terbacanya dengan sendirinnya ketika cerita itu mengalir. Bagaimana karakter itu struggle. Mungkin dia yang ada di Arisan itu tidak stereotype. Dia tidak bergaul dengan pergaulan gay. Sehingga dia merasa menjadi minoritas diantara hetero-hetero teman-temannya dan keluarganya. Seperti misalnya, Berbagi Suami (2006), “Gue pengen menceritakan perempuan-perempuan ini”. Bukan statement bahwa ini anti poligami-nya. Buat gue personal banget menjadi seorang sutradara atau penulis skenario. Karena yang menjadi pegangan gue adalah ceritanya. Apakah kemudian publik menjadikan itu sebuah statement cultural, atau apapun itu tergantung bagaimana dia meramu ceritanya. Sehingga mungkin akan menjadi sangat berbeda. Buat gue, mungkin filem Anak Perawan di Sarang Penjamun (Disutradarai Usmar Ismail pada1960 dan ditulis oleh Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana dalam novel berjudul sama pada 1941—Red.) itu tidak menjadi statement cultural buat gue. Tapi, ketika gue ngelihat di Eropa, mereka punya followers, cult-nya besar sekali, bahkan DVD-nya menjadi collectable item di sana. Buat orang lain itu menjadi sebuah statement cultural. Karena itu menjadi penting buat mereka dan banyak pengikutnya. Ketika buat gue Twilight (2008, bagian awal dari trilogi The Twilight Saga yang disutradarai oleh Catherine Hardwicke berdasar Novel karya Stephenie Meyer—Red.) tidak menjadi statement cultural, karena gue tidak tertarik dengan kultur vampire. Tapi buat remaja itu menjadi sebuah cultural statement. “Became cultural vampire”. They dressed up like a Vampire! Jadi, mungkin Berbagi Suami tidak menjadi sebuah cultural statement buat orang-orang yang memang tidak menonton. Tapi buat sebagian perempuan yang menonton, itu menjadi statement buat mereka. Bahkan mereka membahasnya. Bisa menjadikan reference filem itu. Arisan mungkin buat orang hetero juga. It’s not cultural statement. Tapi buat kaum gay yang kemudian mengikuti dan bahkan curhat sama gue, itu kan kayak snow ball efeknya. Setelah filemnya keluar, setelah bertahun-tahun, masih aja ada yang cerita. Membicarakan dan bahkan . . . Tapi bukan di ranah yang akademis atau diskusi publik yang kayak seperti itu. Bahkan sangat personal. Misalkan email, “saya masih inget loh, filem Arisan, saya mau coming out (terus terang), bagaimana ya?” (tertawa kecil) Gimana ya? Maksudnya, hingga kita yang membuat filem harus jadi teman mereka juga. Gue jadi bingung deh kalau kayak begitu akhirnya. Tentunya akhirnya gue harus menjawab juga, ketika itu dijadikan referensi untuk orang yang mau coming out. Itu kan sangat personal dari orang yang mau coming out.
Hafiz: Sebagai pembuat, lu dimana posisinya?
Nia Dinata: Nah itu, waktu awal-awal gue juga bingung. “Posisi gue gimana nih?”. Tapi akhirnya gue pikir itu natural. Gue gak bisa mengkontrol itu. Gue juga gak bisa men-deny itu juga. Selama gue masih membaca dan masih bisa menjawab, gue akan menjawab. Akhirnya, sebagai pembuat filem, posisi gue sebagai teman dia. Seolah-olah dia kenal gue dari nonton filem. Sampai akhirnya berani membuka dan menanyakan: “Bagaimana nih… Saya sebaiknya bagaimana?”. Gue menganggapnya jadi teman saja. Tapi kalau menurut pendapat pribadi gue, “Ketika lu menganggap memang ibu lu perlu tahu, ya… ceritain aja. Kan lu lebih kenal sama ibu lu”. Gue cuma teman, teman ketemu secara mendadak. Akhirnya ya… Jadi seperti itu. Jadi gimana dong? Orang jadi curhat, bukan karena dia kenal gue, kenal filemnya doang padahal.
Akbar: Gue ingin tahu pandangan lu tentang wacana perempuan di filem Indonesia, misalnya pada tahun 1990-an ada filem esek-esek yang mengeksploitasi tubuh perempuan, representasi perempuan. Sementara filem-filem horror sekarang juga banyak tokoh-tokohnya perempuan, menurut lu gimana?
Nia Dinata: Ya. Wacana perempuan. Gak ada satu wacana yang bisa menjelaskan posisi perempuan di filem Indonesia. Tapi kalau di filem horor, sangat disayangkan sekali banyak filem horor yang menggunakan hantu perempuan. Pembuatnya laki-laki, ya kan? Jadi, dia tidak dibuat dengan perspektif perempuan. Hantu dianggap sebagai sebuah obyek yang gagal dalam kehidupan. Jadi dia membalas dendamnya ketika dia sudah menjadi hantu. Ketika dia hidup, dia tidak bisa melawan. Perlawanannya, ketika dia menjadi hantu. Itu adalah “classical patriarchal perspective” sebenarnya. Biasanya korban pemerkosaan, korban kawin lari, udah dihamilin, terus orangnya kabur, terus dia melahirkan, akhirnya dia meninggal. Dia balas dendam. Semua itu tentang revenge. Jadi, seolah-olah ketika dia hidup dia tidak bisa menyelesaikan masalah. Dan diselesaikan ketika dia menjadi hantu, karena hantu itu ditakuti. Laki-laki yang hidup lebih takut sama hantunya dibandingkan ketika perempuannya yang masih hidup. Menurut gue itu klasik banget. Gue pengen tahu kalau filem hantu dibikin sama perempuan dengan perspektifnya perempuan. Bisa jadi hantunya laki-laki! Mungkin. Yang di-hon(orable) perempuannya. Atau bisa jadi sebenarnya dia justru membalas dendam ketika masih hidup. Ketika menjadi hantu dia tidak balas dendam, kan bisa saja seperti itu. Karena rata-rata itu kan it’s about revenge. Yang tidak bisa diselesaikan ketika dua-duanya masih menjadi manusia. Di filem-filem Indonesia yang kebanyakan itu, pasti posisi perempuannya masih satu dimensi. Satu dimensi itu kayak misalnya, bahkan sampai sekarang, kalau jadi ibu, “perempuan itu harus 100% didedikasi penuh”. Seorang ibu tidak pernah diperlihatkan bahwa dia juga menikmati hubungan seksualnya. Seolah-olah jadi ibu itu gak boleh ada adegan yang seksual. Gak boleh celebrating sexuality-nya. terus kalau dia perannya jadi ibu dia juga harus nurturing (mengasuh) terus. Dia tidak bisa membalaskan atau dia tidak boleh mengungkapkan kekesalannya. Atau kalau dia menjadi seorang ibu selalu mengatur anak-anak laki-lakinya. Sehingga anak laki-lakinya harus mendapatkan jodoh yang sesuai dengan keinginan si ibu. Itu kan hanya satu dimensi penggambarannya. Kalau menjadi anak, dia harus selalu menunggu di jodohkan dengan jodoh yang pantas dari orang tua. Filem-filem sekarang juga masih banyak yang seperti itu. Kalau dia membawa laki-laki yang tidak sesuai dengan kemauan orang tua, dia mendapat oposisi dari ide bapak atau bahkan ibunya sendiri. Jadi, itu masih sangat klasik banget. Posisi perempuan di filem Indonesia, masih belum banyak perubahan. Kalau jadi pacar, dia yang diam-diam aja. Kalau misalnya dia jadi adik, kakaknya yang cowok-cowok bisa membunuh. Bisa menjadi gangster. Tapi ketika dia menjadi adik, dia tidak bisa bersuara, dan tidak bisa bisa ngapa-ngapain. Selalu minta perlindungan. Di filem dikondisikan sehingga keputusannya ada di kakaknya yang laki-laki.
Trailer Berbagi Suami
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Td2qDvK2Q
Akbar: Terus yang tadi lu anggap filem yang patriarki, apa kemudian ada filem yang matriarki?
Nia Dinata: Sebenarnya sih bukan filem yang matriarki. Kalau filem yang matriarkal, nanti kekuasaannya berada di perempuan. Jadi gini loh, posisi patriarki itu kan karena perempuan dan laki-laki, laki-lakinya berada di atas perempuan. Kalau matriarkal the idea hasilnya terbalik. Selalu ada yang di bawah dan di atas. Tapi kalau filem dengan woman perspective, itu kita bisa melihat. Kayak gini, aku baru ngejuri kemarin. Ada filem Korea judulnya The After (Choi Hyun-young, 2009). The After adalah filem tentang anak perempuan yang lolos dari upaya pemerkosaan. Karena insting dia. Dia disuruh sama si pemerkosa untuk masuk ke dalam mobil. Masih pakai seragam. “Guru lu kecelakaan, lu harus ikut gue”. Tapi ketika dia mau buka pintu mobil, dia langsung ngeh. “Gue masuk apa nggak ya?”, akhirnya dia kabur. Langsung telepon gurunya. Ternyata baik-baik saja. Tetapi akhirnya temannya yang kemudian menjadi korban. Laki-laki itu mencari korban berikutnya. Dia merasa guilty banget. Filem itu it’s all about her guilt. Dia merasa lega, at the same time, dia merasa guilty. “Kenapa harus teman gue yang kena?” Kita bisa merasakan bahwa ini filem tentang rape victim. Walau yang satu mati yang satu nggak. Karena yang bikinnya perempuan, kita ngeliatnya bukan dari polisi yang gerabak-gerubuk. Tapi melihat bagaimana guilty trip-nya dia sebagai perempuan. Walaupun dia akhirnya menjadi saksi di dalam persidangan dan segala macem, tapi benar-benar perspektif dia. Si anak SMA yang hampir menjadi korban. Walau pun di situ dia menjadi hero-nya karena nolongin polisi. Nah, maksud gue kayak gitu loh. Bahwa anak remaja itu tidak hanya selalu dilihat dari filem remaja. Cuma sibuk atau dramanya hanya between mencari pacar atau memperebutkan pacar. Tapi si remaja ini ternyata punya drama yang bahkan sampai difilemkan. Tadinya mungkin dia gak pernah kepikiran soal pemerkosaan. Dia anak baik-baik. Dari sekolah baik-baik. Sampai harus berada di posisi dia trauma, kalau ada orang yang belakangnya mengikuti. Sampai dia harus dealing with sex of rape. Itu kan sangat woman perspective. Lalu ada juga filem yang dibikin oleh sutradara laki-laki, judulnya Mother (Bong Joon-ho, 2009—Red.). Dia yang bikin The Host (Bong Joon-ho, 2006—Red.). Padahal yang bikin laki-laki, tapi dia punya woman perspective yang sangat kuat. Mother, Ibu yang membesarkan anak laki-laki yang IQ-nya sedikit di bawah rendah. Jadi dia bukan retard (lambat), tapi sedikit di bawah rendah. Sehingga si ibunya sangat protektif sama anaknya. At the same time, dia single mother. Kemudian anaknya dituduh melakukan pembunuhan. Jadi harus ngebelain anaknya. Tapi di situ kita melihat gimana dia itu juga ditaksir sama lawyer-nya. Dia juga ada rasa tergodanya. Kepengen… To have a sexual relationship dengan laki-laki lain. Padahal sudah tua. Pemeran utamanya sudah 55 tahun. Kemudian, at the end of story dia ikut tur khusus cewek-cewek. Di bis itu semua dansa-dansa. Dansa-dansanya itu yang quite sexual gitu. Dipasangin musik disko Korea lah, Itu kan jarang kita lihat perempuan yang 55 tahun mempunyai dimensi yang sangat multiple dimension. Dia seorang ibu, menolong anaknya yang lagi dituduh membunuh. Tetapi ternyata dia kemudian harus terlibat dengan hubungan seksual juga dengan lawyer-nya. Kita melihat dari angle-angle yang beda. Aku rasa itu sangat bisa sekali dibikin menjadi perempuan yang udah nangis melulu kerjanya, dia frigid, kayaknya gak mau. Atau pun kalau dia mau melakukan hubungan seksual dengan laki-laki itu, dia merasa terpaksa. Jadi seolah-olah perempuan ini gak punya hasrat seksualitas. Maksud gue, kalau dibikin seperti itu gak mungkin filem itu masuk ke festival ini. Karena dia menunjukan hasrat juga. Dia manusia. Dia punya hasrat juga. Sehingga filem ini jadi sangat multidimensional. Jadi contohnya itu. Kenapa perempuan itu kayaknya, “Kalau dia perannya ibu, dia gak boleh mempunyai sexual desire? Kalau dia perannya ibu, dia gak boleh pengen pergi ninggalin anaknya? Ikut tur disko-disko di dalam bis?”. Padahal kalau itu laki-laki, pasti kalau lagi sedih… Perlu pelepasan seksual. Namanya juga manusia, ya kan? Nah, yang kayak gitu-gitu. Kalau gue sih percaya itu harus ada di filem Indonesia. Penggambaran multidimensional dari perempuan seperti itu harus ada sekarang.
Hafiz: Di kita ada gak?
Nia Dinata: Menurut gue sih ada ya. Di beberapa filem ada menurut gue. Tapi sangat sedikit, masih. Sangat disayangkan. Bahkan bukan hanya laki-laki saja yang tidak punya perspektif perempuan, tapi kadang-kadang perempuannya sendiri. Membuat filem tentang perempuan tanpa perspektif itu. Masih dengan menggunakan dimensi yang masih klasik, konservatif lah.
Hafiz: Bagaimana kalau ada yang mengatakan bahwa sebenarnya apa yang terjadi selama ini: Stigma. Kalau membicarakan perempuan atau tentang minoritas di dalam filem-filem kita. Itu sering menjadi. Selalu bicara menjadi stigma korban. Gue melihat itu di filem yang Kalyana Shira produksi, misalnya; Perempuan Punya Cerita (Nia Dinata, Upi, Lasja F. Susatyo dan Fatimah T. Rony, 2007). Gue melihatnya masih terjebak dalam stigma itu, stigma korban. Bayangan multidimensional yang lu maksud tadi, kenapa kita gak punya? Multidimensional perspective bagi isu-isu yang sifatnya minority dalam tatanan yang ada di kita. Soalnya gue melihatnya di dalam Arisan. Baik. Karena menurut gue, perspective-nya multidimensional. Gak ada stigma korban di situ. Karena si gay itu enjoy aja sama life-nya. Dia bergaul. Tapi di dalam kasus beberapa filem kita, kenapa stigma itu selalu mengungkung?
Nia Dinata: Kalau menurut gue memang. Arisan memang sesuai dengan karakter karena kalau gue bikin filem berangkat dari karakternya. Misalnya karakternya dia,… Jangan kita ambil contoh yang gay-nya deh. Karakter dari ibu-ibunya. Banyak yang bilang, “Kenapa sih salah satu tokoh di Arisan harus membalas dendam, ketika suami nya ber-affair?”. Banyak kalangan konservatif yang… Maksudnya tidak sesuai dengan nilai-nilai perempuan Indonesia. Kalau menurut gue dalam kehidupan realitas sehari-hari, banyak orang sekarang yang sebenarnya, pembalasan dendam dalam hubungan suami istri. Ketika dia berselingkuh. Itu sudah terjadi kok, udah banyak dan biasa. Siapa aja bisa balas dendam, gitu kan? Manusiawi lah. Baik itu bales dendamnya dalam bentuk dia berselingkuh lagi, atau balas dendamnya dalam bentuk lain. Itu sudah menjadi bagian dari kehidupan kita. Kebetulan sesuai dengan karakter development dari si tokoh Andien di Arisan. Dia memang dari awal kelihatan sekali orang yang sebenarnya mempunyai obsesi-obsesi tertentu dalam hidup. Tapi harus menjadi ibu rumah tangga. Terkungkung dengan materi yang sangat mencukupi, yang lebih dari cukup. Ketika ada sesuatu yang tidak cukup, dia punya alasan untuk keluar dari kenyamanannya. Bahwa dia memang orangnya tidak takut dengan berada di luar kenyamanan dia. Nah, kalau di Perempuan Punya Cerita, kita berangkatnya juga dari karakter. Ketika perempuan-perempuan ini menghadapi, misalnya; yang satu di pulau, menghadapi kemarahan dari masyarakat. Di pulau dia tetap saja melakukan aborsi itu. Walaupun di ceritanya dia sudah dicap gak bener. Kita melihatnya tidak dari segi seksualitasnya. Tapi dari segi perlawanan dia dalam memutuskan sesuatu. Memutuskan, “Apakah gue mau ngelakuin praktek yang dianggap society salah? Dan tetap gue lakuin dengan konsekuensi akan dikucilkan. Gue harus pindah dari sini. Atau gue mau conforming my status in this island”. Jadi perspektif nya memang lebih ke arah perlawanan yang memang tidak tidak se-ekstrem Arisan. Tapi sebenarnya sih ada perlawanan dari karakter-karakter di Perempuan Punya Cerita. Misalnya si ibu yang satu, bisa saja sebenarnya ketika dia mengetahui bahwa anaknya di-trafficking gitu, dia quit her job. Terus malah tidak berusaha meng-counter si sahabatnya itu. Dia kemudian memutuskan she stay to the job. Ketika temannya balik dan minta maaf, dia gak mau maafin. Dia pergi. Maksudnya, “Gue gak apa-apa deh kehilangan lu”. Jadi perlawanannya mungkin lebih shuttle. Dari pada Arisan. Karakter background-nya berbeda dari perempuan-perempuan di Arisan. Memang sudah kita kondisikan. Gue kalau ngarang karakter, pasti tahu deh dia lulusan mana. Sekolahnya. Bergaulnya seperti apa. Jadi lebih ke arah itu. Jadi sebenarnya kita membangun sesuatu itu harus sesuai dengan—kalau gue sih percaya—bahwa apa yang dilakukan karakter filem harus sesuai dengan pembangunan dirinya. Dari sejak kecil sampai dia dewasa. Jadi apa tindakannya, akan sesuai dengan proses kehidupannya in the past.
Hafiz: Tapi gini, yang lu nyatakan tadi kan lebih politisnya. Yang di kepala gue sebenarnya stigma-stigma ini. Stigma korban dalam konteks, “karya-karya advokasi”. Terutama ya… filem Perempuan Punya Cerita. Karya-karya advokasi kenapa selalu ada stigma korban yang sangat kental? Kenapa gak muncul eksperimentasi-eksperimentasi yang filmis. Menurut gue sebenarnya terjadi di Arisan. Gue menghadapi hal yang sama ketika bertemu dengan teman-teman pembuat filem. Kenapa kita melakukan stigma yang sama. Bagi gue itu problem. Kenapa kita tidak memunculkan orang-orang yang membuat bahasa yang lebih baik dalam konteks filem? Gue melihat dengan perspektif filem. Itu sangat jarang. Gue menemukan sedikit sekali. Kenapa itu terjadi? Lu kan berteman dengan banyak kawan-kawan. Misalnya para pembuat film Perempuan Punya Cerita, ada Lasja, Upi… OK, cerita-cerita yang ada di dalam itu cerita yang gak pernah diangkat dalam filem kita selama ini. Misalnya, seperti yang di Yogya itu. Yang trafficking itu. Tapi ada beberapa di antara filem itu sedikit “banal” dalam konteks bahasa filem. Karena jadi berlebihan. Menurut gue karena mereka gak menemukan bahasa yang baik.
Nia Dinata: Ya. Itu karena mellow. Karena kita sudah sepakat mau menggunakan. Nah, bahasa… Kalau ngomongin bahasa, itu kan melodrama sebenarnya. Jadi bahasanya memang dipilih bahasa melodrama. Kalau Arisan itu kan bahasa black comedy. Jadi, sebenarnya kembali lagi ke genre sih. Memang dalam waktu yang pendek. Terus karakternya beda-beda. Kita harus memang harus bersepakat dulu, mau menggunakan bahasa apa. Kalau di Arisan, genre dan bahasanya sudah sepakat, jelas itu di black comedy. Jadi, ada komedinya. Gak harus physically. Komedinya terlihat dari situasi-situasi yang ironis di situ. Orang bisa ngetawain, bisa tertawa bersama karakternya itu. Kalau di Perempuan Punya Cerita, menggunakan bahasa yang melodrama dari menulis skripnya. Karena dengan waktu yang pendek-pendek itu, kita pengennya dapetin dulu kesadaran bahwa perempuan-perempuan sebagai korban seperti ini banyak. Karena target penonton kita mungkin bukan orang yang paham dengan bahasa. Kemudian target penonton kita bukan aktivis yang sudah paham dengan situasi-situasi seperti itu. Tapi adalah publik secara umum yang cair. Mereka mungkin nyaman hidupnya. Mereka tahu nya dari berita aja. Yang kayak gitu-gitu. Tapi tidak melihatnya dalam sebuah dramatik, audio visual. Nah, karena kita menggunakan dramatik tadi, dramatik-nya di-exploit. Sehingga sampai kepada derajat melodrama. Seperti Biola Tak Berdawai (Sekar Ayu Asmara, 2003) itu kan juga melodrama. Kalau Berbagi Suami nggak melodrama. Itu again, it’s about black irony, comedy terhadap situasi orang yang dipoligami. Sebenarnya genre-genre tertentu secara skrip sudah kelihatan. “Kita bikinnya mau dibawa kemana nih? Mau menggunakan drama biasa, melodrama, atau something a little bit dark?”. Atau ada komedinya atau something yang benar-benar dark, udah, titik, gitu.
Hafiz: Gue kan melihat lu berpijak di dua wilayah. Lu membuat Kalyana Shira Foundation dengan karya-karya “advokasi” minority. Terus, lu juga di industri. Kenapa sih lu bermain di dua wilayah itu?
Nia Dinata: Gue rasa sih, gue gak bisa tidak bermain di dua wilayah itu. Soalnya, di satu sisi gue banyak sekali terinspirasi dari filmmaker-filmmaker, misalnya, kayak Pedro Almodovar di Spanyol. Ya… Pedro deh! Kalau yang di Amerika gak usah diomongin. Dia (Pedro) memang berangkat dari filem komersil. Tapi tetap mempunyai keunikan tersendiri. Setelah dia mempunyai pengikut dan kepercayaan publik, dia juga men-support perkembangan perfileman di Spanyol. Mungkin secara tidak langsung. Sebenarnya tidak hanya dia. Banyak pembuat film Latino yang seperti itu. Iñárritu (Alejandro González Iñárritu, Meksiko—Red.) misalnya. Secara gak langsung itu berpengaruh terhadap perkembangan dan kemajuan—walaupun kecil—filem di negaranya. Kalau kita hanya, “Udah deh pokoknya gue yang penting bikin filem gue aja” Habis itu kita tidak mempedulikan nurturing industry—baik hal-hal yang berbau advokasi, atau pendidikan, workshop, atau apa namanya, membangun kultur filem itu—itulah yang membuat filem Indonesia mati! Salah satu faktornya. Karena di tahun 1980an dan early nineties, Teguh Karya sudah sakit, teater nya juga sudah kolaps. Padahal itu kan sebenarnya cikal bakal tumbuhnya filmmaker berikutnya—yang sudah pernah berkolaborasi dengan dia (Teguh Karya), walaupun mungkin tidak terkonsep gitu, tapi cycle-nya dari situ. Kemudian ada generation gap. Pas dari setelah kolaps sampai sekarang. Karena gak ada yang nurturing. Nah, sebenarnya gue pengen cuma membuat friendly atmosphere saja. Dengan Kalyana Shira Foundation, mungkin bahasa kerennya advokasi, tetapi sebenarnya niat utamanya adalah creating friendly nurturing. Karena waktu gue pertama kali bikin filem, gue aja bingung. Mau nanya ke siapa? Mau membandingkan harga-harga penyewaan alat ke siapa? Bagaimana? Mau mencari editor yang bagus, kolaborasi bersama editor, semualah mata rantai pembuatan filem itu, yang efektif bagaimana? Gak ada tempat untuk bertanya. Nah, kenapa Kalyana Shira gue bilang harus? Karena secara gak langsung tanpa Kalyana Shira Foundation pun sebenarnya sudah banyak sekali pembuat filem muda. Tanpa kenal, cuma dari email. “Mbak, kalau ke festival, kita punya filem pendek nih, kalau ke festival mana, apa? Segala macam. Gak ada sistemnya. Lebih baik sekalian dibikin yang ada sistemnya. Tapi kita juga harus fokus. Gak bisa semua orang harus kita ajak. Sehingga fokusnya woman filmmaker, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual dan Transexual), dan anak-anak. Fokus yang benar-benar kita support 100% harus itu. Tapi kalau cuma support, “Wah keterima nih filem pendeknya di festival ini, tapi tidak punya dana untuk datang, bisa gak Kalyana Shira Foundation?” Kalau itu sih gak usah (LGBT), kita lihat filemnya, kalau emang bagus, lihat CV-nya, kita bantu mencarikan dana ke ke lembaga-lembaga lain. Sebenarnya sih awalnya memang cuma itu. Pengen meng-create friendly informant-lah. Kalau dilihat tahun 1999-2000, waktu gue baru mulai, itu hard banget. Persaingan? Gak ada persaingan sih. Tapi benar-benar gak tahu, “Ini mau kemana ya?”. Kalau sekarang tinggal buka website Kalyana Shira Foundation, ada contact-nya. Kalau misalnya mereka punya filem, atau punya ide, atau mau ikut workshop, segala macam. Sebenarnya idenya cuma pengen membuat lingkungan yang ramah terhadap pembuat filem baru.
Hafiz: Balik ke pertanyaan tadi yang gue rasa belum terjawab. Sebenarnya posisi lu dimana dalam konteks industri filem sekarang? Lu berpijak di area minority tadi, itu di kita sangat sedikit yang bicara masalah itu. Kenapa itu menjadi penting?
Nia Dinata: Menjadi penting buat gue… apa ya?
Hafiz: Sebenarnya pertanyaan gue ke cultural statement tadi. Karena bagi gue, lu punya cultural statement. Walaupun tidak diucapkan dari lu pribadi. Berkaca para founding fathers filem Indonesia, dari Djajakusuma, Usmar Ismail, Sjumandjaja dan lain-lain, ada semacam bacaan bahwa mereka membangun pernyataan-pernyataan kultural. Tentang nasionalisme, dan sebagainya. Posisi lu di mana? Karena ketika pertanyaan ini gue tanyakan ke Riri (Riri Reza—Red.), itu jelas banget, “Posisi gue di industri, pokoknya bermain di wilayah industri, dan ideologi gue adalah di mana industri-industri itu bisa hidup”, tentu dengan cara yang benar maksudnya.
Nia Dinata: Gue mau menjawab pertanyaan Riri aja kalau begitu. Industri itu tidak akan mungkin hidup, tanpa didukung dengan filmmaker yang sadar bahwa ia juga harus terlibat dalam membangun sub-kultur yang ramah terhadap industri. Karena dari workshop yang non-profit, filmmaking funding… Ya udah non-profit. Orang bisa bikin filem segala macam, melanjutkan berkarya. Dia bisa memilih untuk terus membuat filem yang non-profit, kemudian dia bekerja di bidang lain, ya kan? Atau kemudian dia bisa membuat filem yang akhirnya komersial juga. Itu keputusan pribadi dari masing-masing orang yang jebolan workshop Kalyana Shira Foundation. Yang penting kita udah membekali. Kalau gak ada pembekalan, gak akan mungkin survive filemnya. Khususnya industri (filem) di Indonesia. Sekolah filem aja kita punya cuma satu. Pemerintah gak menyiapkan dana, atau gak punya komisi filem, seperti KOFIC (Korean Film Council) di Korea Selatan. Gak punya komisi filem seperti di Prancis yang memang siapa saja bisa di-nurture. Dan yang nurture adalah badan pemerintah ini. Kita sebenarnya persis banget seperti di Amerika. Pemerintahnya gak peduli sama industri filem. Tapi industrinya jalan. Tapi karena apa? Karena Robert Redford punya Sundance Foundation, Martin Scorsese punya Film Foundation yang khusus hanya nanganin arsip. Jadi, masing-masing mungkin punya panggilannya. Dan kalau gue, posisi gue, gue gak bisa. Gue berada di industri memang. Tapi gue gak akan mungkin bisa tidur kalau gue hanya ada di industri! Gue juga pengen berada di areal yang nurturing. Mungkin itu adalah nature gue kali.
Akbar: Kembali lagi yang tadi, persoalan filem yang berperspektif perempuan. Apakah itu ada di level naratif, aktor, atau bahkan sampai shot?
Nia Dinata: Itu sebenarnya sangat menyeluruh. Yang terpenting tentunya cerita, dan plot secara keseluruhan. Protagonis kita harus multidimensional, harus perempuan, hero the main protagonist-nya harus perempuan. Itu persyaratan umum dari filem yang memiliki feminine perspective. Kemudian yang berikutnya mungkin bisa dilihat juga dari pengadeganannya. Kadang-kadang banyak sekali filem, ya… Simple shot, tanpa dialog kita bisa ngelihat. “Kok dia ada di posisi gambar ini, yang satu di sini, yang satu di sini posisinya”. Itu yang dari visual statement-nya juga bisa. Gak perlu harus naratif. Bisa kita lihat dari situ. Sampai ke detail-detailnya, dialog. Misalnya dialog-dialognya kritis terhadap kondisi si karakter. Apakah dia misalnya ada perlawanan terhadap kondisinya dia? Apakah dia juga meng-empower orang lain supaya ikut dengan misi dia untuk keluar dari konfliknya? Jadi gue rasa gak cuma dari general plot-nya saja. Tapi juga harus didukung dengan faktor-faktor teknis dalam filmmaking. Karena akan aneh misalnya kalau plot hero-nya perempuan, protagonis-nya perempuan, sudah multidimensional, tapi ketika mengambil shot-shot-nya dia kelihatan mungkin lebih kecil daripada si tokoh ini, itu akan aneh. Itu kelihatan dengan sendirinya. Filmmaker pasti harusnya sudah tahu hal itu.
Hafiz: Sejauh ini yang lu temukan dari para pembuat filem muda, itu bagaimana? Kemampuan mereka dalam membangun karakter dan membangun bahasa filem. Gue balik lagi, lu berdiri di posisi industri dan juga ada di wilayah sosial kulltural seperti yang lu kerjakan sekarang ini. Ada hubungannya gak dengan persoalan misalnya pasar? Itu bagaimana?
Nia Dinata: Kalau untuk urusan pasar, bahkan di industri pun, sejauh ini gue masih berusaha menjalankannya dengan filosofi yang benar. Filosofi yang tidak saling mengeksploitasi. Dalam arti, walapun, kayak kita bikin filem. Sekarang gue lagi bikin Madam X, gue lagi produserin Lucky (Lucky Kuswandi). It’s “Lucky”. Mulai dia bikin filem pendek yang non-profit, bikin dokumenter segala macem. Dia bilang, “Iya nih, gue siap, sekarang bikin filem yang untuk komersil di bioskop”. Nah, dengan seperti itu gue juga mengambil resiko loh. Ini filem emang harus komersil. Harus di bioskop. Tapi hero-nya “banci”. “Ada gak yah yang mau nonton? Ngerti gak?”. Walaupun kayak Arisan, gak ada media yang mau partneran sama gue waktu itu. Sampai akhirnya Femina Group berani menanggung resiko itu. Karena terus terang, kalau tanpa didukung media mainstream—filem di bioskop memang commercial release, dengan kalahnya kita promo dengan filem dari luar yang masuk ke Indonesia—ya… Mati aja! Ya… Bunuh diri di awal artinya. Tapi resiko bahwa ini tidak bisa diterima oleh masyarkat Indonesia, tidak diterima oleh sensor, itu selalu ada. Walaupun gue di industri dalam hal ini, gue masih berani sampai sekarang untuk menanggung resiko itu. Karena apa? Karena gue tidak pernah mau membuat filem dengan biaya yang mahal. Filem-filemnya Kalyana Shira itu, kalau dibandingkan dengan filem-filem yang beredar, biaya produksinya paling murah. Soalnya gue orang yang paling strict dalam soal budget. Gue strict dalam segala hal. Gue lebih prep(are) yang lama. Supaya shooting-nya gak membludak budget-nya. Karena gue tahu, bisa meng-observe ide super hero banci. Bisa meng-observe ide, “Ada ibu-ibu arisan dengan temannya gay di dalam filem Arisan.” Itu mungkin di negara kita belum banyak. Orang lain sekarang bikin filem sudah diatas 5 M (milyar). Gue sih gak akan berani. Jadi gue masih benar-benar sangat konservatif dalam budget. Karena kita gak bisa. Kalau gak, kita gak akan bisa membikin filem selanjutnya. Kita harus memikirkan sustainability Kalyana Shiara Films juga sebagai entity yang komersil. Orang yang mau membuat filem bersama kita, yang tadi lu bilang orang-orang yang mau kerja sama kita. Tidak hanya harus memahami perspektif minoritas, menterjemahkan bahasa tulisan menjadi bahasa gambar, tapi juga harus memahami kalau mau bikin filem sama gue gak bisa mahal-mahal! Tapi gue menyadari limitation itu. Mungkin sampai lima tahun ke depan kita belum bisa. Karena gak mungkin penontonnya 2 juta. Itu gak mungkin!
Hafiz: Belum pernah…?
Nia Dinata: 1,5 Juta, filem Quickie Express (Dimas Djayadiningrat, 2007)
Hafiz: Pertanyaan terakhir. Bagaimana menghadapi sistem nilai yang ada di kita?
Nia Dinata: Nilai apa nih? Moral?
Hafiz: Ya. Moral. Bagaimana menghadapinya dengan isu-isu yang “di luar” nilai-nilai itu? Baik dengan society, stakeholder, dan pemerintah.
Nia Dinata: Gue sih menghadapinya dengan jalan aja terus. Karena filem yang kita bikin kebetulan memang semuanya ‘agak’ kurang sesuai dengan…—Mau dilihat dari berbagai sisi bisa didebat, semua orang punya alasannya masing-masing—kayaknya kurang sesuai dengan tatanan nilai moral Indonesia. Tapi kita bisa mengembalikannya. “Nilai moral yang mana? Nilai moral ukuran siapa?”. Mungkin pada nilai moral empower status quo, memang tidak sesuai. Gue me-represent filem-filem, karakter-karakter, cerita-cerita, yang memang berada di luar lingkungan atau lingkaran status quo. Nah, kalau menurut di lingkar luar status quo ini sah-sah saja. Memang filem gue gak ada pesan moralnya. Pesan moral terserah penonton aja, gitu kan? Karena untuk orang dewasa. Gue percaya bahwa filem untuk orang dewasa gak perlu ada pesan moral lah. Orang dewasa bisa menilai sendiri. Lain halnya ketika kita bikin filem anak-anak atau membaca buku anak-anak, selalu di ending-nya ada pesan moralnya. Karena anak-anak selalu butuh guidance untuk mau dibawa kemana pesan moralnya. Tapi untuk orang dewasa, semua filem gue yang di luar filem anak-anak memang tidak atau memiliki pesan moral. Karena salah satu pesannya yang selalu ada… Cuma equality kok. Cuma equality!
[/tab_item]
[tab_item title=”EN”]
Nia Dinata: Filmmakers Need to Create an Industry-friendly Subculture
“There isn’t a single discourse that could explain women’s position in Indonesia because, so far, most films are made with male perspective. All my films refuse to contain moral message as it has only one message: equality!”
Nurkurniati Aisyah Dewi, more widely known as Nia Dinata, fiercely explained her views on women’s position in Indonesian films. In her opinion, films should give room to equality in seeing society’s divergence. A director born in March 1970, she chooses film as her way to deliver story-driven tales to people.
She studied journalism inElizabethtown College,Pennsylvaniaand continued to study film production inNew York University,United States. This talkative lady chooses against-the-current themes for her films. “I represent films, characters, stories that are outside status quo environment or circle,” she explains.
In April 17, 2010, Jurnal Footage had the opportunity to squeeze an interview with her in her super tight schedule. We met her in Pacific Place when she, under Kalyana Shira Foundation, was organizing KidFest 2010—an international children’s film festival held in Jakarta. In this interview, representing Jurnal Footage are Hafiz (Editor-in-Chief), Akbar Yumni (Editor) and Syaiful Anwar who recorded our conversation with a video. Interview took place in Blitz Megaplex smoking lounge,Pacific Place, Jakarta.
Hafiz: Nia, Jurnal Footage would like to somewhat document a series of interviews with several Indonesian directors and film practitioners, both the new generation as well as the older ones. We would like to see the past and present state of Indonesian films. We try to be selective in terms of deciding which figures to interview. They are individuals that we consider pivotal in the history of Indonesian film. Among the listed names, you are one we consider to represent the new generation of Indonesian filmmakers. We need to know what’s inside your head. This whole time, all we know is “Nia Dinata is great”, she has received various awards. But we don’t want to talk about that. Maybe as a starter, can you tell us why you choose film in the first place?
Nia Dinata: Why I choose film? Well, actually, I wasn’t the outgoing type when I was a kid. I mean, when other children would play outdoors and involve themselves in physical activities, I tend to avoid physical activities. It’s clearly shown when I was a kid. I preferred to stay in. I’d rather read books. I’d rather watch films. Watch films… Probably because the experience was magnificent. We didn’t have cineplex back then. When we go to cinemas, when I was a kid I went to Blok M—now Blok M Plaza—back then it’s called New Garden Hall. It’s near from where I lived in Bulungan, across State High School 9 and State High School 11. It’s within walking distance. It had gigantic screen, bigger than the ones in cineplex. The curtain was golden. They’d lift it up slowly… in the dark. That alone is already a memorable experience for me. Being in the dark, seeing that gold curtain lifted up, it’s magical! I watched old movies, from Superman I (Richard Donner, 1978—ed.) starring Christopher Reeve, and then Badai Pasti Berlalu (Teguh Karya, 1977—ed.). My aunts used to take me, so it didn’t actually suit my age. Teguh Karya’s film, Ibunda (1986). Point is, whenever my aunts watch movies, I’d surely join them. Maybe because the activity is interesting to me. And also reading books. I didn’t have that many friends and I preferred those activities. Afterwards I moved to Saudi Arabia. It’s an alien country to me. I was seven years old, a prime age for movie-watching. But they didn’t have cinemas there. If one wants to go to the market, she has to cover her body. It was difficult for me. I couldn’t wear shorts, mini-skirts, sleeveless tops. It discouraged me to go outside even more. Luckily, there’s a library in that expats residential complex where I lived, they had lots of Betamax videos. And book library. So we could watch movies… children could watch movies. Due to lack of parental control, I watched films such as Kramer vs Kramer (Robert Benton, 1979—ed.) (laughs). In short, I watched most of Jack Nicholson’s films during that era (One Flew Over ther Cuckoo’s Nest [1975], The Passenger [1975], The Last Tycoon [1976], Goin’ South [1978], The Shining [1980]—ed.). It seemed that I matured before my time. I knew more about divorces. And I could watch that film over and over. I really love Kramer vs Kramer, I don’t know why. They did have Sound of Music (Robert Wise, 1965), The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming, 1939), and other children’s movies. But I was already tired with those. They didn’t have much of children’s movies anyway. So I grew to love Meryl Streep’s and Jack Nicholson’s films.
Hafiz: Your interest was in the cast…
Nia Dinata: Yes, the cast. I remembered their faces, so I watched their films. I felt like I can fantasize from there. It became my hobby. But I never knew there’s a whole process behind each film. I was merely curious how one can make something, watched by other people, and after watching, they fantasize about the characters eventhough the film has ended. I also thought, “What would I do in that situation?” Ever since I was a kid, I love… who’s that guy, Angelina Jolie’s father? (Jon Voight—ed.) The Champs (Franco Zeffirelli, 1979—it was a remake of King Vidor’s work of the same title in 1931—ed.). “If I were in that situation, how would I react?” It released my imagination. And so then, when I returned toIndonesia, I preferred to watch videos. In 1983, Indonesian films dominated by blue films. We no longer watched movies during that time. So I counted on those Betamax videos and re-watched them until I memorized the dialogue, the shots. I even learned that it’s called shot. I started to know more during high school. Back then we didn’t have internet yet, right? I graduated from high school in 1988, I was the ‘80s generation. I was confused of where to continue my study. If I wanted to learn how to make such works, what should I study? I didn’t know that yet. In high school, I finally realized, I knew that’s the direction I would like to take. That’s all I know.
Hafiz: What’s the charm for you?
Nia Dinata: The charm? I felt… for example, when I watched The Champs. I never like boxing. Everytime people see Muhammad Ali’s match on TV, I never like it. But when I watched The Champs, it didn’t make me like boxing, but I learned that there’s major health issue in boxing, at the end of the day. Also that boxers are treated like rock stars. They also have problems in life. That’s the charm. I’m the kind of person interested in… whatchamacallit… the dramas. It charms me. Life dramas and characters.
Hafiz: What’s next? What phase after that?
Nia Dinata: We didn’t have video player back then. It’s not as easy as people who have video players and home video. No handphones yet. So, I translated that charm into writing. I write film stories because I love to write. I happened to be a study-oriented student in school. I wasn’t…Well, in short, I was a good girl (laughs). I wanted to study writing further. While for composition, in schools—in Indonesian language class—when I was in junior high and high school, students were not encouraged to speak their mind in writing. They always asked us to write holiday stories, instead. It’s repeated over and over every year, “What did you children do during the holidays?” Which is too bad because our imagination is already beyond that, right?
Hafiz: It has failed your imagination?
Nia Dinata: Indeed. It didn’t nourish our fantasies. So, I thought what I want to study in university is to write. I wanted to write things that would feed my fantasy and develop my writing skills. That’s why I studied journalism. I took journalism as I still thought about career path. I actually intended to study in IKJ (Jakarta Art Institute) but none of my friends wanted to go there. I was from State High School 34 and all my friends were like, “Are you out of your mind? Going to IKJ?”
Hafiz: Going into the lion’s den?
Nia Dinata: Into the lion’s den. So, yeah, I took journalism instead. I was so eager to be independent, to be able to manage my own life. And I wanted to study in the States so badly because I wanted to study films there. It’s where all the films I watched come from. I wasn’t familiar with European films yet. At least not at that time. When we were in high school we didn’t have the access yet, we didn’t even have DVDs yet. When I finally went to the States, I enrolled in a Journalism School. There, I had an Italian roommate, her name’s Francesca. This Italian girl took Film Study. She’s the one who introduced me to Italian films. She said, “Nia, you have to buy this Italian film by Federico Fellini. As for French films, you have to watch Jacques Tati.” What are those? And when I finally watched them, it’s crazy. I was like, “Wow! It’s a whole new world.” In my college we have a cine club. On weekends we would screen Iranian films. I watched Zhang Yimou’s first film when I was in college. I watched Ju Dou (Zhang Yimou, 1990) in wide screen. It was discussed by the cine club. I found an exciting world. After watching a film, people are apparently discussing it. And people’s perspective can vary very greatly. People can debate, lots of interpretation, wow, it’s crazy! It seemed that I found something that even if nobody would pay me I would still love doing it. Without any coercion, I took a class which main assignment is to interpret films. So, while I studied journalism, I simultaneously took an optional class of Cinema Studies. We weren’t handed over cameras. Just to read, how to read a film. All sorts of film. Although it wasn’t my major, but the class gave room for my imagination. I could write reports according to my interpretation. All we did is watch films and write reports, that’s all. Then I thought, “After this, I should know more technical stuffs.” While everybody watches blockbusters, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mission Impossible, my roommate refused to watch those stuffs. My roommate always took me to this place called Angelica, Art House Cinema. We watched non-mainstream films. As I watchedHollywood films during childhood, it was as if I learned whole new references. And I thought, “This is what I want to do. I want to learn more about this. I want to seriously study this.”
Hafiz: So, when did you start making your own film?
Nia Dinata: After I finished my study in journalism, I took film major. Seriously studying Film Production. Due to lack of financial resources, I didn’t take master’s degree. I took only Film Production for a year. I actually recorded with camera, 16 mm, sound, and everything was worked on in a routary. The assignments started from making video clip, short film, experimental film, up to graduation film which was a 15-minute short film. Drama and narrative. So I thought, wow, I did practically everything. While studying there, each time there’s a film project going on, I took any chance to be either wiring operator, mic boom operator, anything as long as I was involved in the process.
Hafiz: What did you imagine about film? When you were a kid, when that curtain lifted up, it was magical. I experienced the same thing when I was a kid myself, when the curtain is being opened up.
Nia Dinata: The curtain lifted… (laughs)
Hafiz: Then suddenly you made one of your own. What did you feel, being in the world behind that Gold Curtain?
Nia Dinata: Literally a Gold Curtain…
Hafiz: Then suddenly you made one of your own. What did you feel, being in the world behind that Gold Curtain?
Nia Dinata: Aaaah… so that’s how it is. Of course, when we made short films, in class, made music videos, experimentals, even when we edited in Steenbeck machine, we only screened the final films in class. But my graduation film was screened in Tribeca, Robert de Niro’s building. The school rented the venue for graduation. It’s not a cineplex. For the first time ever, I knew how it was to have your film screened. It felt like, “Wow, they’re going to see my film.” I was afraid and shy because all students and lecturers were there… It was my first experience… Being watched by lecturers, students, alumni, all experts. After your film is screened, you had to come forward for Q&A session. They asked things such as why you made this film, why that way. I was shy and afraid, but also excited. My film was about Indonesian children. It was entitled Scissors. I went as far as looking for Asian cast, I taught them how to speak Indonesian, although it contained very little dialogue. Its dialogue was basically a verbal fight, of siblings who fight over Bobo magazine. They have the magazine delivered fromIndonesia, and their mother is upset. The mother appears only from the presence of her legs. Then the mother tears the mag with scissors. These two children in the end get nothing. The film was in black and white. I felt there’s something different in my film, something that gave me courage. When they lifted the curtain, “Aaaaaah…”
Hafiz: Where did you get the inspiration to make that film? Sorry, I haven’t seen the film.
Nia Dinata: I only have the VHS.
Hafiz: I would love to see it some time.
Nia Dinata: I can send it to you.
Hafiz: When you said “scissors”, I instantly imagine Hitchcock.
Nia Dinata: Hitchcock? Yes, because my reference was Hitchcock. I love Hitchcock. But it was something that happened to me as well. So it was based on my experience which was, to me, very traumatic. When I was little, Bobo mag was issued every Tuesday. Each Tuesday morning I waited for the delivery before the house gate. The delivery guy rode bicycle. I always read Bobo, I wanted to be the first person in the house to read it. You see, my little brother always snatched it away from me. So every Tuesday morning, I’d always have a fight with my brother. After months of fights, my mother grew sick of seeing her children fight every week. So one day, without ado, she just tore it right before my eyes. I witnessed it happened, looking up from below. It was like seeing… everything just flew. My brother couldn’t be more ignorant. Well, a boy his age, what did he know, right? All he wanted to do is to upset me. But afterwards, “Aaagh, I can’t read my Bobo.” You get what I mean? That’s what’s traumatic to me. That’s why I translated it into a film for my final exam. When I watched Hitchcock, I thought, “Ah, this is exactly how I felt.” The trauma was like “Jeng… Jeng…” (laughs) It’s as if played in slow motion and the scissors went, “Skreaaaaak.”
Hafiz: And then, when you returned, you initiated Kalyana Shira?
Nia Dinata: Of course not. I returned here and did some journalism work.
{youtube}RLvfp2CdUYA{/youtube}
Hafiz: Okay, let’s dig that part first.
Nia Dinata: I worked for SeputarIndonesia (RCTI, a private-owned TV channel—ed.) in 1993. Experience-wise, I gained nothing. There’s no meaningful experience for us. The year was an era of the New Order, everytime I did a coverage on something, I edited it, and then edited further by the editor. “You can’t talk about this… this… this…” Press was unlike today. I resented it. Finally I thought, I might as well work for a production house and make ads, instead of making something serious and tried to become a watch dog but failed. Back then, one can only cover good news.
Hafiz: So, how long did you work there?
Nia Dinata: Pretty long. Until 1999 I made ads, video clips. From there I started to know IKJ graduates, advertising people, people who work on video clips, music, and we became friends. We end up as partners in filmmaking later on.
Hafiz: Your first movie was…
Nia Dinata: Ca Bau Kan… (2002)
Hafiz: Ca Bau Kan… How was it? The first time you made film, you brought forward minority issue, why?
Nia Dinata: Actually I already started to write Arisan, but it was made later on. When I saw the book (Ca Bau Kan), it really suited my taste for reading I developed during my college years. In college, besides taking cinema studies class, but also… well, since I took journalism, we had to take literature as well. One of the compulsory class in literature. We can choose either mainstream classic literature or minority literature. I didn’t know why I took minority lit. Maybe because I had lots of friends of minority race, such as Latin American, Chinese American, Korean American and Indian. I think, the experience written by minority writer, about minority people in a country in which the majority is not their race, it’s interesting. Very interesting. Classic works always talk about individuals, of someone’s existence, such as Camus, Kafka and the likes.
Hafiz: Self actualization?
Nia Dinata: Self actualization. See, for those minority writers, how can they actualize themselves? Even before they can actualize themselves, they need to firstly make peace with their minority situation, the condition of being marginalized. Not to mention the fact that the States back then, it was very racist. They would always encounter racist treatments from their environment. So before they actualize themselves, they have to deal with that kind of emotional feelings. I read about that a lot. And I truly fell in love with such kind of minority writing. When I read Ca Bau Kan, I didn’t know who Remy Silado is. I thought he’s also a member of minority. Well, a Manadonese. Still, a minority, right? Most of us are Javanese, right? Then I thought, “Wow, this guy can really describe a minority culture which, during my grown-up years in the ‘80s, very little talked about. He depicts it in a very visual way. That book is very visual. And so I imagined so many things. I remembered the minority lit I read when in college. I thought, “This can be very interesting when filmed.” I started to look for him (Remy Silado) afterwards.
Hafiz: To my observation, your next works always take that side.
Nia Dinata: You think so?
Hafiz: Minority side, such as Ca Bau Kan and Arisan (2003). What is minority perspective to you? Within our Indonesian context. I mean, stigma of minority in this country is also latent, right, like “You Chinese, you gay, you Javanese!”
Nia Dinata: Anything from the other side, yeah.
Hafiz: What do you think, actually?
Nia Dinata: We, the ‘80s generation, certainly grew up with Javanese majority. While myself, I’m probably only one-eighth Javanese. I have morePadang and Sundanese blood in me. But what I found during high school was how we weren’t taught to read novels. What do we have in our Indonesian language classes?
Hafiz: How to read good literature…
Nia Dinata: No, they didn’t teach us to do just so. Then, all the time, what we encounter on TV was always about Java. Our ministers were mostly Javanese. Our presidents have always been Javanese, right? It seemed that we’re a very Java-centric country. But I feel that other cultures in Indonesia are also very interesting. Within Indonesian context, I feel what I see and hear. What I read this whole time is very Java-centric. Even when I read Pramoedya Ananta Toer, it was when I was in college in the States, I bought it at Yale when I was visiting a friend. From a bookstore in Yale, I bought the complete series of Pram’s quartet. It’s still Java-centric. From there, I asked for Para Priyayi (Umar Kayam) to be delivered to me. What else is good? But it’s all Java-centric, Fiz.
Hafiz: Indonesia is java, right? (laughs)
Nia Dinata: Of course not! (laughs) When I read Ca Bau Kan, eventhough the setting is in java, but it tells the story of Chinese ethnic. That’s what’s interesting. There lies a magnet for me. RegardingIndonesia’ other minority groups, I think… well, it’s supposedly equal. Because that’s what shapesIndonesia—differences and ethnic races. As for minority groups regarding sexuality, religion, what have you…Indonesia is the largest moslem country in the world. That’s what we always hear. While in fact, we have lots of other religions. We have a large population, 250 million people. Take just 5% of it, it’s still a large number! So I think that’s necessary, and I love to work on that instead of working on something stable because it already has its own strength, and it has a place for its own. So, the ones without a place nor strength, I think it’s more interesting.
Hafiz: There is this analogy about the concept of culture, especially the concept of modernity. Usually, the concept of modernity emerges from rebellious concepts, as in rebellious to domination, such as the changes in a culture, they always begin from something peripheral. The center is usually status quo. Does concept of change as you described to bring forward minority issues or issues outside status quo circle through film language become urgently necessary to actualize you as a modern man, someone with advanced thinking in humanity?
Nia Dinata: Wow, I, in fact, did not think about it that far. I just thought, okay, they’re minority. My environment is like that. A diverse environment. I do not socialize that much, most friends I have are not Javanese. My girlfriends—for example the ones from high school, we’re still good friends—none of them are Javanese.
Hafiz: Why is that?
Nia Dinata: I don’t know. It happened naturally. Most of us are eitherPadang—again and againPadang (laughs)—orMakassar. We vary. Imagine that. The result is a group of loud, outspoken ladies, totally not Javanese-like.
Hafiz: Java-centric.
Nia Dinata: That was high school friends, then there was also friends from work. In my working environment, I encounter not only heterosexuals. So there are a lot of people with different sexual preference from me. Come to think about it, not only my colleagues; some of my uncles are apparently gay. I grew up with them.
Hafiz: Yet they’re acknowledged?
Nia Dinata: They are. Why not? We don’t see them one-sidedly. Not from ethnicity, nor sexual preference, nor religion. Why can’t we bring that up? To bring that issue in the works we make. Now I have my own family, I married a man of Chinese descendant. That’s diversity. My environment is very diverse, so I feel natural. I portray that kind of diversity in my work.
Hafiz: I would like to return to film. How do you think of the current film industry?
Nia Dinata: Its current state? Are you crazy? It has totally leaped!
Hafiz: Let’s compare. You undergone the ‘80s films era when you were little and was fascinated by it. Now you’re one of the filmmakers, involve yourself in it and work for the industry.
Nia Dinata: Generally speaking, our current film industry is in a more-or-less similar position. During the early ‘80s, late ‘70s, there were a lot of Indonesian films screened in cinemas. Almost every weekend they would have new Indonesian film. People also loved to go to the movies to see Indonesian film. I even think I was less fortunate because I only saw movies in New Garden Hall. But if I talked to other people who also undergone that era, we could actually watch more cultish films. So I was like filtered. Now I also research, apparently during those years we have this and that film. Very diverse. From Ibunda, Secangkir Kopi Pahit. My aunts took me to see those films. Back then I didn’t know we had other kinds of Indonesian films out there. I figured it out only after the era has passed. Apparently, starting from martial art flims, action figures like Eva Arnaz and Barry Prima had their own cult followers. So I think the variety is more-or-less like the old days. We have teen movies, sex comedy, ghost horror stories, as well as the serious ones. We have a wide range of variety now.
Perempuan Punya Cerita Trailer
Hafiz: What does it mean to be a director to you?
Nia Dinata: To me, being a director is, well… being able to translate our vision into stories. I’m the kind of person who loves to direct the films I write. I feel that the idea of being a scriptwriter, film director, filmmaker, they transfer stories. They have the urgency to tell something. They’re storytellers. Even when I produce a documentary, I’m still story-driven. I love to read stories. I love to fantasize. To me, stories and how we want to hear people’s stories is what keeps us alive. Makes things alive. I think we’re storytellers.
Hafiz: In several interviews, meeting friends, I have this same question. I think being a director is to have cultural statement. Someone who delivers a cultural statement to public. In 1995, I had a conversation with Teguh Karya, in my mind I imagine being a director is… being far ahead. Because he holds a crucial position. Because he absorbs many cultural aspects. This question becomes important to me, for Jurnal Footage, because we see a certain situation with our film industry currently. Then, the questions that rose during the decline of our film industry in the ‘90s where we witness an absence of cultural statements from the auteur. What do you think?
Nia Dinata: A director or filmmaker departs from story. Whether the story becomes a cultural statement, it depends on how the public reviews it upon the impact of the said work towards the cultural condition of its society. Say, if we depart from a cultural view, something like, “Okay, I want to make a cultural statement. I don’t have a story but I want to make a cultural statement!” I should think it’ll only be a mere pretention. To me personally, for example when I made Ca Bau Kan, it got its round shape as an adaptation of the novel into script and then film. Not because it has any cultural statement. The first thing was… there’s minority voice. Here is a story people should know. People should know more… know this story, hear it. They can read it from the book and then see the film, once it’s made to one. I made Arisan not because I wanted to deliver a cultural statement on gays. I thought that this story of friendship is important, it’s gotta be told. Someone’s gay doesn’t always suit its stereotype—work at a salon, receives treatment which… a little bit of harsh treatment from society. It’s shown naturally, automatically as the story goes. How the character struggles. The gay depicted in Arisan might not follow certain stereotyping. He doesn’t mingle in gay circles so he feels as a minority among his hetero friends and family. Take also Berbagi Suami (2006). I wanted to tell the stories of these women, not a statement on polygamy. Being a director or scriptwriter is very personal because my rule-of-thumb is the story. Whether the public would then perceive it as a cultural statement or anything depends on how a director/scriptwriter builds the story. So it can be very different. To me, for example the film Anak Perawan di Sarang Penyamun (directed by Usmar Ismail in 1960 from the novel written by Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana by the same title in 1941—ed.) is not a cultural statement. But when I was in Europe and saw that there are followers for the film, the cult is big, even the DVD becomes a collectible item there—for them, that film is a cultural statement because it becomes an important work for them therefore has got a lot of followers. To me, Twilight (2008, the first part of The Twilight Saga quartet, directed by Catherine Hardwicke based on the novel of Stephenie Meyer—ed.) is not a cultural statement because I’m not interested in vampire culture. But for teenagers it’s a cultural statement to become a cultural vampire. They dress up like a vampire! So, Berbagi Suami might not be a cultural statement for those who didn’t see it. But to those who did, it’s a statement. They even discussed it. Some made the film as their reference. Arisan to heteros may not be a cultural statement as well, but for gay people who followed the story and even shared their story with me, it’s like a snowball effect. Even years after the film is produced, there are still people who talk about it. Not in academic setting or public discussion or such like, but in personal ways such as through e-mail, “I still remember Arisan, I would like to come out but I don’t know how.” (laughs) How do you handle that? I mean, as filmmaker we have to be their friend, too. Sometimes I get confused in such situation, but of course I still need to reply anyway when the film is made as a reference for gays who would like to come out.
Hafiz: As a filmmaker, where do you position yourself?
Nia Dinata: Ah, see, at the beginning I was also confused. Where am I? But then I think it’s natural, I don’t have control over it. I can’t deny it either way. So long as I still read and am able to answer, I will. In the end, as a filmmaker, I have to position myself as his friend. As if he knows me from the film until he finally has the courage to be open and ask, “What I am supposed to do?” I consider him as a friend. To my personal opinion I said, “If you think your mother needs to know, then tell her. You’re the one who knows your mother better.” I’m just a friend, we’re friends who meet out of the blue. In the end, yeah… it was like that. How am I supposed to do? People share their stories not because they know me; just because they know my film.
Akbar: I would like to know your views on women discourse in Indonesian films. For example, in the ‘90s we had many blue films which exploited women’s body, representations of women. Current horror films also carry a lot of women cast. What do you think?
Nia Dinata: Yes, women discourse. There’s no single discourse that can satisfyingly describe the position of women in Indonesian films. As for horror films, it’s such a regret to see how most of them present women ghosts. The filmmakers are male, I bet. So they weren’t made in women’s perspective. Ghosts are considered persons failed in life so they seek revenge during their afterlife. When they’re alive, they couldn’t fight. They fight after they turn into ghosts. This is classical, patriarchal perspective actually. Typically the ghost is a rape victim, she got pregnant, the man fled, she gave birth and then died. Then she seeks revenge. Everything is about revenge. As if when she was alive she couldn’t solve her problems. Things are then settled from the afterlife because everybody’s scared of ghosts. The man fears her ghost more than when she was alive. I think it’s too classical. I would like to see a horror film made by woman with woman’s perspective. The ghost might as well be male! Probably. The female figures are put in a more honorable perspective. Or even, she seeks revenge when she’s alive. When she turns into ghost, she stops seeking revenge, could be, rite? Mostly it’s about retaliation, things failed to be settled when both parties are living, breathing creatures. In most Indonesian films, women are positioned uni-dimensionally. Uni-dimension is, for example, when a woman becomes a mother, she has to be 100% dedicated. There’s never a depiction of a mother who enjoys her sex life. As if once you have a mother character in the film, you can’t have sex scenes. She can’t celebrate her sexuality. Because she’s a mother, she has to always nurture. She can’t express and avenge her resentment. Or, because she’s a mother, she always has to direct her son. Her son has to find wife of her mother’s likings. That’s totally one-sided. Same thing when the woman character is a daughter. She has to wait for her parents to meet her with a suitable future husband. There are still quite a lot of films nowadays that fall into that typicality. If she happens to introduce a man not of her parents’ likings, she will have to confront disapproval from her father or even her mother. So it’s very classical, still. Women’s position in Indonesian films doesn’t change much. If she’s someone’s girlfriend, she’ll be depicted as the quiet type. If she’s someone’s younger sister, her brothers are of the violent type. Gangster-like. Since she’s a little sister, she’s voiceless, hopeless. Always asks for protection. The film is conditioned to have her brothers as decision-makers.
Trailer Berbagi Suami
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Td2qDvK2Q
Akbar: Then, referring to what you term as patriarchal films, are there matriarchal films?
Nia Dinata: Actually, not necessarily termed as matriarchal films. When we term it matriarchal, then women figure is depicted as hegemonic. This is how I see it: patriarchy denotes a condition where men are above women. Matriarchy is the other way around. Both assume the presence of strata, one is above the other. But films with women’s perspective, we can see how it’s different. For example, I just happened to jury a festival recently. There was a Korean film entitled The After (Choi Hyun-young, 2009). The After is a film about a schoolgirl who escapes a rape attempt, owing to her instinct. She’s asked to come with a man with a car, she’s still wearing her uniform. The man says, “Your teacher had an accident, you better come with me.” But when she opens the car door, she noticed something’s not right. “Should I come?” In an instant she decides not to and calls her teacher immediately. Turns out her teacher is alright. But eventually her friend becomes victim as the rapist continues to look for prey. She feels extremely guilty over the incident. The film is all about her guilt. She’s relieved while at the same time feels guilty to have one of her friend victimized. We can see this film is about rape victim, even when one dies and the other survives. Since it’s made by a woman filmmaker, we see the incident not from the perspective of hasty police officers, but from the survivor’s guilt trip as a woman. Although she ends up being a witness for the case trial, but it’s presented from her perspective. A high school girl close to becoming a rape victim. She eventually becomes the hero in the film for helping the investigation. You see, that’s what I mean—how a teenager is not constantly seen from teen movies with busy social life, with drama revolving in looking for or winning over a boyfriend. Here, a teenager struggles with a drama worth filming for. She might never even think about rape. She’s a good girl from a reputable school; how suddenly finds herself bearing trauma upon having her friend victimized, how she suddenly has to deal with sex rape. That’s woman perspective. There’s also a film by a male director, entitled Mother (Bong Joon-ho, 2009—ed.). He directed The Host (2006—ed.). Despite being a man, he has strong woman perspective. Mother is a story about a mother of a son with borderline IQ. So he’s not retarded, just slightly below average. His mother is very protective to her son. At the same time, she’s a single mother. One day, her son is accused of murder. So she has to defend him. In the film we see how their lawyer is hitting on her and how she also shows her vulnerability to temptation, how she actually wants to have a sexual relationship with other man despite her old age. The mother is 55 years old. At the end of the story, she joins an all-ladies tour. In the bus, everyone of them dance around. Their dance is quite sexual. They put on Korean disco songs. See, that’s rare, to see a 55-year-old woman depicted in a very multi-dimensional perspective. She’s a mother, defending her son who’s accused of murder, but then she’s involved in a sexual relationship with their lawyer. We see different angles. Seeing from the storyline, the director could make her character as a whiny, wimpy, frigid woman. Or even when she’s involved in sexual relationship, she’s forced to do it, as if she has no sexual desire. Of course, I mean, if the director did decide to make such character, the film would never make it to this festival. Because in the film, the mother shows desire. She’s a human, after all. She has desires, and it makes this film very multi-dimensional. That’s some examples. Why stick to a rule in which mothers can’t have sexual desires? Mothers can’t leave their children and go on a disco tour in a bus? If the main character is male, I bet they would picture him go on a sexual spree if he’s having a hard time. Human, right, what to do? See, things like that. I believe we need such perspective in Indonesian films. We have to have multi-dimensional depiction of women.
Hafiz: Do we, currently?
Nia Dinata: I think we do, in fact. In some films, at least. But still very few, which is too bad. It’s not only that male lack woman perspective, sometimes female filmmakers even lack that perspective. They make films about women without such perspective, trapped in classic, conservative dimension.
Hafiz: What do you think if one says that what happens this whole time is: Stigma? Talking about films about women or minority in our films, it happens a lot, people eventually turn to a stigma about victim. I see that in a production of Kalyana Shira, for example, Perempuan Punya Cerita (Nia Dinata, Upi, Lasja F. Susatyo and Fatimah T. Rony, 2007). I see the film is still trapped in that stigma, of victim. Why don’t we have multi-dimensional depiction you mentioned earlier? A multi-dimensional perspective for minority issues in our social structure. I see it in Arisan. It was good. The perspective is, to me, multi-dimensional. There’s no victim stigma there because the gay character is depicted enjoying his life. He mingles. As for other films, why does the stigma seem to keep imprisoning?
Nia Dinata: I think it does, yes. Arisan suits the character as, everytime I make film, I depart from characters. For instance the character… Well, let’s not take the gay one, let’s take the mother character instead. Lots of people comment, “Why does one of the character in Arisan have to avenge when her husband cheats on her?” Lots of people with conservative views think that the film’s depiction is not in accord to the values carried by Indonesian women. While I think, in reality, lots of married couple actually avenge each other when they find out their spouse is cheating. It happens many times and has become common. To retaliate is human, right? Either they cheat on their spouses back or avenge in other form. It’s part of our lives. It happens to suit Andien’s character development in Arisan. From the beginning of the film she’s pictured as an ambitious person, yet she has to be content on being a stay-at-home mom. She’s confined in an overwhelming material wealth and once she notice a single flaw in her life where something does not suffice her, she finds herself an excuse to get out of her comfortable life. Since early on, she’s depicted as the type of person unafraid to be outside her comfort zone. As for Perempuan Punya Cerita, we also depart from characters. These women face, for example the character that lives in an island, disapproval from her society. She continues to practice abortion in the island although, in the story, she’s already deemed ignoble by her society. We didn’t try to perceive it from her sexuality but from her struggle in deciding whether she wants to head with the abortion practice—something deemed thoroughly wrong—and takes the risk of being secluded by the society. Her options are either to leave the island or to confirm her status in the island. So the confrontation was made not as extreme as in Arisan. But we did present struggles from the characters in Perempuan Punya Cerita. For instance the story about a mother whose daughter is traded in human trafficking practice. She could quit her job when she finds out her daughter is apparently trafficked. But she decides to stay to the job. When her friend approaches her and apologizes, she refuses to forgive and walks away, which is kind of her saying, “I don’t mind losing you.” So the struggle is more settled than in Arisan. The characters’ backgrounds are also different from the women in Arisan. We conditioned them that way. When I write of a character, I know exactly from which school he/she graduates. Their school, their circle of friends. More to that direction. So we were building something in accord to—as I believe in—their character development since their early years until adulthood. What they do, how they react, it needs to suit their life process in the past.
Hafiz: Okay, but what you just described is more to its politics. What I have in mind is this stigma. Stigma of a victim within the context of “advocatory works”. Especially, well… Perempuan Punya Cerita. In advocatory works, why is there always a strong sense of stigma? Why not present more filmic experimentations? I think it’s well presented in Arisan. I encounter the similar question when I converse with my filmmaker friends: why do we keep presenting the same stigma? To me it’s kind of a problem. Why can’t we have people with better language in film context? I perceive it in film perspective. It’s so very rare. I don’t find it often. Why? You have lots of friends. For instance from Perempuan Punya Cerita, you have Lasja, Upi… Okay, well, the stories in the film were never before seen inIndonesia films, such as the one in Yogya, the one about trafficking. But some stories in the film are “banal” in film context due to exaggeration. I think it’s because they failed to find good film language.
Nia Dinata: Yes, that’s because it’s mellow. We agreed to make it that way. You see, talking about language, it’s actually melodrama. So it’s actually predetermined. Arisan is black comedy. So, it’s goes back to genres, actually. Especially in Perempuan Punya Cerita, the story timeframe is short and it has quite a wide range of characters. We are required to agree on the language beforehand. In Arisan, genre and language was agreed to be black comedy. So there’s an element of comedy. Doesn’t necessarily physical comedy, but inherent in the ironies in it. People can laugh at it, together with the characters. As for Perempuan Punya Cerita, melodrama was agreed since scriptwriting. Due to the short timeframe, firstly we wanted to capture public’s awareness on victimized women, that these cases happen a lot. This is because our target audience might not be familiar with film language. Also, they’re not activists who understand those situations. They’re generally liquid public. They’re probably live conveniently. They only encounter those things in the news, but not in audio visual dramatics. Since we’re using dramatics, we exploited the drama up to the level of melodrama. Such as Biola Tak Berdawai (Sekar Ayu Asmara, 2003), that’s also melodrama. Berbagi Suami was not melodrama. It’s, again, black irony, comedy about women in polygamist marriages. For certain genres, it can clearly be seen from the script. “Where do we want direct this to? Do we use average drama, melodrama, or something a little bit dark? Or do we want to insert comedy or something completely dark, period?”
Hafiz: I see you position yourself in two areas. You initiated Kalyana Shira Foundation with advocatory works for minority issues. But you are also in the industry. Why do you involve yourself in those two areas?
Nia Dinata: I should think it’s impossible for me not to be on both areas. On one hand, I’m inspired by filmmakers, for example, Pedro Almodovar fromSpain. Well, yeah, take Pedro. Let’s not talk about American directors. Pedro himself started from commercial films, but he carries his own distinctiveness. After he gained trust and followers among public, he started to support Spanish film industry growth. Maybe only indirectly. And not only him. Lots of Latino directors are like that. Iñárritu (AlejandroGonzález Iñárritu,Mexico—ed.), for instance. However indirectly, it contributes to the growth and advancement of—however small—the film industry in their respective country. While what we have here, “I’ll just go make my film”, without even bother to nurture the industry—be it in advocatory works, educational, workshop, or whatever to build the film culture—that’s what kills Indonesian film industry! At least one of the factors. During the ‘80s and early ‘90s, Teguh Karya had already fallen ill, his theatre had also collapsed. It was actually a nursery for the following generation of filmmakers—people who have collaborated with Teguh Karya—although maybe it wasn’t planned out exactly that way, but it was the first chainlink for the cycle. Pressumably, there’s then a generation gap, post-collapse until today, because nobody nurtures the industry. So I basically wanted to create a friendly atmosphere. With Kalyana Shira Foundation, we may dashingly say “advocatory”, but the main idea is to create a friendly nurturing. Because, well, the first time I made my own film, I myself was confused. Where do I consult? Where to compare prices for equipment rentals? How? If I want to collaborate with good editors, and all those film production chainlinks, how to do it effectively? There’s no place to consult. See, why do I then say we have to have Kalyana Shira? Because even without Kalyana Shira Foundation, young filmmakers are already starting to emerge. We don’t know each other, we just correspond through e-mails, such as “We have short film. Where do we go if we want to submit it to a festival? Which festival?” All kinds of questions. We have no system. Might as well make one. Yet we need to remain focused. We can’t accommodate everyone. So we focus on woman filmmaker, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual), and children’s issues. Those issues are our main focus that we support 100%. As for basic support, for example if a film is accepted in a certain festival but the filmmakers happen to lack financial resources to attend the festival, Kalyana may help. It doesn’t have to be a film on LGBT, for instance, we will just look the film up, if it’s good material we will also look at their resume, and we can help to resource funding to other institutions. So initially that’s the main idea. We want to be a friendly informant. Looking back to 1999-2000, when I first started, it was really hard. Competition? There wasn’t any competition, actually. Just totally lost, “Where do I go?” Now, one can just visit Kalyana Shira Foundation’s website and find our contacts. If one happen to have a film, or an idea, wants to join workshop, anything. Basically, the idea is nothing but creating a friendly environment for new filmmakers.
Hafiz: Back to the previous question that I feel remains unanswered. Where do you actually position yourself in the current film industry? You set afoot in minority area, very few of Indonesian filmmakers deliver such messages as you do. Why does it become important?
Nia Dinata: It becomes important to me… Hm, how do I describe that, ya?
Hafiz: My question leads to the aforementioned idea on cultural statement. To me, you do have cultural statement, even if you don’t state it personally. Looking up to the founding fathers of Indonesian films—Djajakusuma, Usmar Ismail, Sjumandjaja, etc—there’s a certain reading that they delivered cultural statements. On nationalism, etc. Where do you position yourself? When I asked this question to Riri (Riri Riza—ed.), he was very clear, “I position myself in the industry, industry is my playground, and my ideology is where industry is alive.” In the right way, of course.
Nia Dinata: I will answer to Riri’s question instead, then. Industry will not sustain without the support of conscious filmmakers who realize that they need to create a friendly subculture towards the industry. Because from non-profit workshops, filmmaking funding, people can go on making any kind of films and continue to create works. They can choose to make non-profit films and then work in another field, right? Or they can, in the end, make commercial films. Each is a personal decision of anyone who’s graduated from Kalyana’s workshops. What’s important is for us to provide assistance. Without filmmaking assistance, the films will never survive. Especially film industry inIndonesia. We have only one film school. Government doesn’t provide any funding, or establish a film commission, unlike KOFIC (Korean Film Council) inSouth Korea. Also unlike in French who have film commission who can nurture everyone. And taken care of by their government. We have a similar situation with theUS, actually. Their government doesn’t give a damn about film industry. But the industry sustains. Why? Because Robert Redford has Sundance Foundation, Martin Scorsese has Film Foundation that focuses on archive management. So, everyone probably has their own call. As for me, my position, I can’t. I’m in the industry, I am. But I couldn’t possibly sleep knowing I’m merely in the industry! I need to be in a nurturing environment. Maybe it’s my nature.
Akbar: Back to film with women perspective. Does it lie in the narrative level, or actors, or even down to shots?
Nia Dinata: It’s very comprehensive, actually. The most essential is of course the story and overall plot. Our protagonist has to be presented multi-dimensionally, has to be female, the main protagonist hero has to be female. Those are general requirement of a film with feminine perspective. Next we can probably see down to its scenes. Sometimes there are lots of films that, well… simple shot, without dialogue, and we can analyze why in a certain scene, a character is placed here, the other character there. We can analyze from its visual statement. It doesn’t have to be narrative. We can analyze even to the details, dialogue. For example, critical dialogue towards the character’s condition. Does she resist her condition? Does she also empower others to join her mission to get out of her conflict? So I think it’s not just from general plot. It has also need to be supported with technical factors in filmmaking. It would be weird to have a female hero within a plot, a female protagonist, presented in multi-dimension, but upon taking shots she’s pictured smaller than the other characters. It would naturally show. Filmmakers should already know that.
Hafiz: So far, how do you find the current young filmmakers, with regard to their capability to develop character and film language? Again, you position yourself in the industry as well as in socio-cultural domain as you currently are. Has it anything to do with the obstacles in the market?
Nia Dinata: With regard to the market, even the industry, so far I still try to execute things with the right philosophy. A philosophy that doesn’t exploit one another. I’m currently making Madam X, am producing for Lucky (Lucky Kuswandi). It’s “lucky”. He started with non-profits shorts, documentary, anything, until he says, “Okay, I’m ready to make a commercial film for cinemas.” See, I need to take risk with that. This film has to be commercial, it does. Has to be screened for cinemas. But the hero is a transsexual. Would anyone want to see this kind of material? You know what I mean? Even when I made Arisan, there was no media who wants to be my partner until finally Femina Group was willing to take that risk. Because, to be honest, without the support of mainstream media—film for cinemas is indeed a commercial release, with us being beaten with the promotions for imported films—well… it’d be a suicide since the very beginning. But the risk of having the film rejected by Indonesian society, censored, such risk will prevail. In this case, I still have the courage to take such risk. Why? Because I never want to make film with skyrocket production cost. Kalyana Shira films, compared to other films, have the lowest production cost. I’m the strictest person when it comes to budgeting. I’m strict for anything. I prefer to prepare longer to prevent overbudget during shooting. I know for sure, to observe an idea of a transsexual hero, to observe an idea of housewives with gay friends as in Arisan, that doesn’t happen a lot in this country. Nowadays, people may make film with a budget over five billion rupiah. I would never be able to do that. I’m very conservative when it comes to budgeting. Because I know we can’t. If we do, we wouldn’t be able to make more films. We have to think about Kalyana Shira Films’ sustainability as a commercial entity. People who want to make films with us—people you refer as the ones who want to work with us—do not only need to understand minority perspective and to translate text to visual, but should also know how they can’t make high-budget films with me! I realize that limitation. Maybe we won’t be able to until the next five years. Because the audience will never reach two million. Impossible!
Hafiz: Never?
Nia Dinata: One and a half million, Quickie Express (Dimas Djayadiningrat, 2007).
Hafiz: Last question. How do you deal with our value system?
Nia Dinata: What value? Morals?
Hafiz: Yes, moral. How do you deal with issues “outside” those values? Be it with society, stakeholders and government.
Nia Dinata: I just go on with it. Most of our films happen to be slightly off-tangent—debatable from every point of view, with various reasons. All seem to be rather unsuitable with Indonesian moral standards. But we can counter it: Which moral? Whose standards? It may not suit morals empowering status quo. I represent films, characters, stories that are outside status quo environment. According to the environment outside status quo, it’s legitimate. My films do not contain moral messages. It’s up to the audience, right? They’re films for adults anyway. Adults can judge for themselves. A children’s film or book is a different story, they need to have moral messages at the end because children always need guidance. As for adults, all my films, other than children’s film, refuse to carry moral messages since one of its messages that prevail… just equality. Equality only!
[/tab_item]
[/tab]
