A Spectacular Battle

Stephen Gapps (2009) and Jerome de Groot (2009) have argued that it is a misunderstanding to think that reenactors want to “immerse themselves” in the past. While authenticity is presented as the ultimate aim, they know that the true past “will never be attained”; reenactment, therefore, allows room for imagination (de Groot, 2009, p.

One of the most powerful effects was the soundscape that was profession­ally created for the show: a compilation of sirens, gunshots, bombs, plane engines, and instrumental music suggesting danger approaching. It started off with beeps imitating the start of an old radio show. A deep male voice narrated the historical episode we should imagine ourselves to be in, pro­viding context for the spectators as well as guidance for the reenactors on when to act. The end was symbolized by sounds of victory: applause and patriotic music such as Indonesia Raya, the national anthem since the proc­lamation of independence.

The “real” live sound and visual effects consisted predominantly of fire­works and smoke, often so intense that spectators and press would put their hands on their ears and close their eyes before the smoke could irri­tate them. Participants started making the smoke bombs weeks prior to the event, cooking a combination of sugar and fertilizer and then putting it into handmade carton tubes. In some, red colorant was added to make the show even more dramatic. These moments were reserved for the end when red and white bombs set alight simultaneously would represent the Indonesian flag. Reenactors would refer to the bombs in emic terms, categorizing each one with a number ranging from 1 to 6.

The bombs, fireworks, and props seemed to be important success factors for a reenactment show. When asked about previous iterations of the reen­actment, Henry defined the growth of the event in relation to the number of bombs set off. For the first one in 2015, for example, “only” 200 were used. They also rented an armored vehicle that year, a Ford Lynx Scout, similar to the one used during the battle for Surabaya in 1945. For the 2016 edition, the one I visited, they planned to set off 300 fireworks. Another element that would be added to impress the audience and visiting reenactors was a tank, which the reenactors were able to hire from the army in Bandung. It was a model Stuart M3A3, imported from the United Kingdom but used by the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army in Indonesia. While it had not been used during the Serangan Umum 1 Maret, it functioned as a popular prop during reenactors’ photo shoots. As a result of a kind of rivalry between various well-known reenactment shows, Henry argued that the event had to become more “spectacular” each year. For the year 2017, Henry said he wanted the reenactment to start with a parade in the Jalan Malioboro, the busiest shopping street of Yogyakarta. Other plans included a plane flying over at the start of the show, representing the attack on the Maguwo airport during the second military campaign in 1948.

The emphasis on “spectacle” seemed at odds with the same emphasis on “authenticity”, as spectacles exceed the real (Smelik, 2016, p. 68), and there­fore in this case, the “true” past. The 300 bombs and fireworks used, each guerrilla fighter carrying several guns and mortars, and the presence of the tank suggested an intensive mass spectacle that did not seem to coincide with the event in 1949.

Similar to the desire for reproductions rather than original gear, many reenactors seemed more interested in the edited action photos and videos of themselves shared after events than in the actual experience. Several of the reenactors were professional photographers, and many others had invested in high-quality cameras or invited skilled friends. While the actual reenactment lasted only for 20 minutes, reenactors visited Benteng Vredeburg hours prior to the event to do photo shoots in com­plete “impressions” and with the available props. The most liked photos on Facebook were those in the “heat of battle,” showing concentrated faces and sweat, often with perspective askew, suggesting movement and danger. Sometimes reenactors would attempt to retake a historical pho­tograph by imitating the vantage point, backdrop, and pose—to be put online later, in some instances juxtaposed with the original image, to emphasize the similarities. “Authenticity” was further reinforced in the post-production process using black and white filters, sepia effects, or grain for a “vintage feel.” I also encountered efforts to manipulate pho­tos in such a way that it suggested they were published in history books, accompanied by a description of the historic event in an old-fashioned font. Occasionally, there was a whole series of these photos that described each episode of the event, stressing the educational importance of reen­acting while also suggesting a sense of objectivity. Stephen Gapps (2009) has described this type of photography as the ultimate modernist simu­lation: a tableau vivant. “Like the original tableaux, they confirm both their own powers of reproduction and their reenactment competencies” (p. 402). Additionally, since photo- and videography is perceived as real­istic media, pictorial renditions often serve as proof of “having been there” (Chalfen, 2011, p. 36). Reenactment photo- and videography offers, in that sense, the ultimate pursuit of realizing an imagined past: it serves as evidence by capturing participants as protagonists in that specific epi­sode of history that was so important to them. The participants’ interest in the simulation rather than the “original” allowed them to create a past that was a material realization of their own imagination. But how does this “ideal” world deal with the historical narrative and controversy sur­rounding the original event they reenact?