Missing Home (2022) — Writing that is Provocative, Divisive, and one that is yours and mine

DISCLAIMER: The following text contains heavy spoilers for the Indonesian movie Missing Home (Ngeri-Ngeri Sedap). I assure you all of that is geared towards a rave about how glorious the movie is. So go watch the movie. If you loved it, return and read this to share your enthusiasm with me.

There is no hallmark for a great screenplay. Hallmarks dictate a set of norms. Screenwriting is an art that thrives on bending and, if necessary, breaking those rules to produce something that appears to be either different from the start or nothing extraordinary until closer observation.

So here is a movie that gives you a subtext that is not in line with the premise or what you are manipulated to see. It is simple. An old couple lives with their daughter. Their three sons are all far away from them. They have not been home in a long time. So the parents desire to have their children return home to coincide with a marriage reaffirmation ceremony for their grandmother. So they decide to fake a divorce to incite chaos, hoping it would entrap their kids and force them to return. The three sons are entrenched in the less traditional views of society. The eldest has no regard for tribal pride. The second inline disdains the inflated value placed on particular professions by his parents and society, The youngest has a contention with a custom regarding caretaking of elderly parents (they get a house as compensation for this but that was not enough for him to come back home). The daughter, who is the model child, stays with the parents, employed in a reputable occupation. The movie focuses on the charades orchestrated by the parents to keep up both the facade of separation and thus the reality of togetherness.

This is what you see. There is something we need to agree on to understand the beauty of the movie. Art is provocative. Art is divisive. Art, more than all, is part of the one who experiences it as much as it is of the creator. With this in mind, let us delve into this film.

Art is provocative:

The movie never shies away from this. It has been explicit and implicit about this. The difference lies in how much mental energy you are willing to invest. The friction between modernism and traditionalism, the debate between individualism and tribalism, and the discrimination between males and females in a progressing society, where conservative thoughts still have some traction. The beauty is, half of the film acts as a comedy with deceptive characters for the greater good. It is not a comedy in the strictest sense but it reiterates that simple premise again and again. Nevertheless. the writing is deceptive too. For example, take the scene where the mother takes her three sons, whom she has not seen in a long time, shopping. The scene is not a glorified nostalgia effect with warmth and humor filling the screen space. That would have been easy. But the filmmaker goes into the provocation path. He provokes the viewer to disorientation. No, it is not caused by gimmicky camera effects. The scene does not make itself clear in the tone. There is not a tonal shift but rather obfuscation. Is it about the antagonism of the modern offshoots against a sweet mother’s visit down memory lane? Or is it her inability to comprehend their growth? Or is it about society’s expectations for those who have had upward social mobility? Answering that is not the purpose (more about this in the next subheading). Repackaging what should have been a pleasant scene (or at least a scene where something drastically unexpected takes place) into an exhibition of subversion is where this movie stands apart from the usual ‘feel good genre’

Art is Divisive:

As mentioned above, answering the question posed is not on the agenda. But dividing people who attempt to answer is certainly the ambition. The way you read into that scene does not necessarily define you as a person but rather plays to your belief system or mayhaps, rattles it a little. Why I say it is divisive has got to do with the choice of conducting this in a mellow manner until the denouement. Sure, it did not adhere to the hard rules of a ‘feel-good’ film. That cannot substitute the fact that there was never any serious intensification or any character forced to confront their demons (until close to the end). Only the facade was pulled at now and then in an ostensibly mild manner, clearly invoking a sense of innocuous intentions. What this did was, for most of the film, you were, rather comfortable. I am not adjusting your level of perception here. I am ascribing my perception of what the filmmaker wanted to do through this writing. This comfort is not a guaranteed one. You know this because there are creaks starting to appear in the veil of amusement. It has not been shredded to pieces yet, but the queasy feeling is being induced through implicit instigations. Then the film saw through your comfort with the confrontation between the patriarch and everyone else.

But that alone is not enough to divide you, without denying that the events of the film until then are crucial. Yes, the patriarch was not entirely the ideal father according to modern standards. But he was not a bad one either. He did not abandon them. He did not leave the sons to fend for themselves after they graduated. He also was not a monster to his wife. I know these sound like lame justifications. But my point is that those who are from his generation or have rather some sympathy towards the customs and the resultant choices of the previous generation had someone to root for. That demographic was not spurned away by the writer. He tried to level the playing field as much as possible so that when all hell broke loose, you could not completely hate the patriarch. That is the accomplishment of masterful storytelling, dividing opinions within yourself.

Art is yours as much as it is mine:

This one is an extension of the previous point. Let us address the huge elephant in the room that the writer hid in plain sight. From the beginning, the establishment of the true nature of this family has been laid clearly but not plainly. Not just the family but also how it has been shaped by the Batak community they are embedded in. What was this inconspicuous society that I am talking about? It is that the family is not actually happy but is being controlled to maintain a joyous state of mind. You see the older couple planning to deceive their children. Then they continue to extend the con to make them stay. Until the father confronts his children regarding their choices, you are made to believe that this is an innocent attempt. But it is a scheme of a man who has controlled his surroundings for years. I am not denying that many would have seen through this subterfuge and pointed out his behavior. But that is the point of the movie. It is for those who caught that and those who did not. Then as the final confrontation unfolds, the mouse in the room that is covered by the elephant is revealed. The patriarch is controlling. The three males are rebelling. But what about the women? They cannot do that. They are the real victims here. Their choice to rebel is stripped. The stripping is not only because of the father but a collaborative effort of their community at large.

This starts from the little gathering that the father is part of. Whenever his wife goes to pick him up, he is not happy to appear weak and lacking control in front of his friends, and his peers in the community. The same goes for how he and his wife act in front of the village priest. So it is clear that the female characters are seen as weak, without agency, and malleable from the first scene of the film. You see how the sister is treated by all four men. No, it is not a negative connotation. She was treated well. This is acknowledged by the dialogue that how parents behave towards each other and their children are passed on to the heirs. When all is said and done, you see the father vulnerable for the first time in the film. To whom did he reveal his emotions? The only woman who has power over him through love 𑁋 his mother.

The writer in this conversation shines as more of a thinker than a filmmaker. It was measured, composed, and never puts anyone of the parties involved on the stand to be judged. This requires a clear idea about the subject the writer is handling. There is another conversation, earlier in the film, between the grandchildren and their grandmother. In this, she tries to ease any animosity between the sons and their father. It may appear to be in conflict with the previous scene I mentioned. But if you follow the film along with its insinuation and also a rather explicit confession by the sister character later in the film, everything the women do is to keep the family intact. Why did the wife agree to the husband’s plan of fake divorce? To see her children, yes. But also to keep the family together. In the same vein, the grandmother also appears to be in contrast but sometimes what seems to be hypocrisy is the only bastion of peace. That is why the women of the family have tolerated the passive-aggressive machinations of men. This has been the primary or one of the core themes of the film and the conflict between the two scenes involving the grandmother is resolved through this prism.

Circling back to the title of this subheading, this movie is yours. If you are a father with grown-up sons and daughters, you are in this film without being made a complete villain. If you are someone with the blossom of youth and the vast ocean of potential ahead of having financial independence, this one is for you. Finally, if you are a person, this is for you. Heck, even those who can connect with the waiter character early in the movie when the mother goes shopping with her sons have a place. This need not be how movies should be made. As I said, art has no hallmark. But it sets a mental/emotional standard for those who enjoy it. This will set such a bar, at least for the so-called ‘feel good’ genre.

I could talk about the staging in the film, which was a little awkward at times. I could go on to say how the music was both rooted and westernized with its classic East Asian instruments and guitars. I could also opine about the Batak culture which was captured in its essence beautifully by the film. But I don’t want to make this akin to a normal review. Let this remain an attempt at a treatise on this charmingly brilliant screenplay.

Originally published at http://thevicariousview.wordpress.com on January 12, 2023.