Pessimism in After the Curfew: Political Power and Class Divides

As a post-war era film with social criticism, After the Curfew is one of those “moment of bliss” movies. It is not just about the director’s political background. However, Usmar Ismail’s name is remembered not just for his themes surrounding the physical revolution and cultural upheaval of the 1960s. In a way, his first three films reflected the growing political polarization at the time.

However, the context should focus on more than just the hard facts of the past. It is about discussing good works of art, always considering them within the context of a different era.

In 1952, tanks were rolled up to the State Palace. It was a crucial moment in civil-military relations of the time. Abdul Haris Nasution and T. B. Simatupang, two of the highest TNI leaders, pushed for a restructuring of the military. They planned to allow only soldiers with Dutch military education to enter the ranks, eliminating former PETA soldiers and the Laskar.

However, the plan was thwarted by the DPR’s intervention, leading to the October 1952 affair. This affair served as a reminder to civilians not to interfere with the military’s structure. This event is remembered as a failed coup, where Nasution and Simatupang were sidelined, but the military strengthened its position. This conflict was also about each side claiming the right to hold political power.

This tension continued throughout the Physical Revolution. Beyond the civil-military issues and the “moment of bliss” related to leadership claims in After the Curfew, Iskandar’s story offers different insights into these problems. A former fighter, Iskandar, is haunted by the guilt of his actions during the war. Another theme of the film is the rise of new social classes after the Physical Revolution: the bureaucracy and the military, which are clearly represented as separate classes.

Iskandar, an engineering student who went to war, comes from the middle class of the colonial era. His girlfriend’s family is bureaucratic and enjoys hosting all-night parties. The film also shows two former soldiers who, after the war, take leadership positions in state-run companies. Meanwhile, Puja, Iskandar’s comrade, has become a gambler and a pimp. The changes in Indonesia’s social classes are reflected here, and the country’s unique position in the revolution stands out.

Unlike other revolutions, Indonesia did not have a solid national bourgeoisie to support post-revolutionary development. By 1950, most businesses in Indonesia were owned by the Dutch. The non-Dutch elite, meanwhile, were mostly involved in trade. This situation led to the state nationalizing Dutch companies, with support from political parties and the military.

Military backing for the nationalization of foreign companies was also seen as an act of taking control of local industries and political positions. The military had already anticipated this move, and the bureaucracy quickly became another elite group within the government.

In the Physical Revolution, the bureaucracy’s role was crucial in establishing the republic’s legitimacy internationally. Unlike the Dutch elite, who were targeted by the masses in 1945–1946, the bureaucrats’ position remained largely unchallenged. While the bureaucracy controlled state enterprises, many of these were also under military control. It set up a distinct business sector that would only grow stronger in the New Order era.

In After the Curfew, the bourgeoisie is not portrayed as outside the state apparatus but rather as having been part of the bureaucracy since the republic’s founding. Class relations are portrayed through the way the two elite groups create their respective pariahs. Some ex-soldiers return to civilian life, while others get caught in the underworld.

Iskandar would never have gotten a job if his girlfriend’s family were not bureaucrats. His second job came from his former commander, Gunawan, who is now a director. During the war, Gunawan had ordered him to execute a family suspected of being spies. Iskandar’s pre-war college status saved him, but without those connections, his life could have been as rough as Puja’s.

Through Iskandar and Puja, Usmar Ismail critiques the system. Iskandar represents a middle class that failed to identify with its class, while Puja is a discarded warrior who becomes the perfect symbol of pragmatism. In After the Curfew, Puja contrasts with Gunawan’s position. After the war, veterans like Iskandar and Puja either end up rich or poor. This harsh reality, shaped by their military rank during the war, is a stark reminder that the stigma of “veterans becoming bandits or living in prosperity” still exists, not just in Indonesia.

For Iskandar, being an “insider” is inevitable. On his first day at work, his coworkers tease him for being a “veteran.” He feels the same way about Gunawan, who uses revolutionary rhetoric to justify his wealth. Despite his disgust, Iskandar continues to hang out at his girlfriend’s house, where all-night parties take place with socialites and revolutionary heroes. It represents the cozy relationship between the military and the bureaucracy, a picture of intimacy that ends the civil-military conflict.

To fully understand the dynamics in After the Curfew, it is important to read beyond the clichés of “historical grudges” and the “moment of bliss.” The film asks tough questions: Who should hold political power? Is it the diplomats or the soldiers? Should they be idealists or pragmatists? Without understanding the political and economic context, Iskandar’s expression of disappointment might seem like a typical moral critique born out of pessimism in the local context.

Apart from critiquing corruption and abuse of power, the film also questions the origins and mechanisms behind these issues. It is not just a simple critique; it is full of paradoxes and dilemmas. In the 1950s, the relationship between social classes was largely ignored in propaganda films about “returning to society,” which were very common.

If the political context focuses on class conflicts, After the Curfew offers many moments of bliss. How did the revolution shape social and political conditions? How did the new government deal with the consequences of revolutionary violence and the remnants of colonialism? These are questions that viewers continue to ask today.

One of the main questions is: “Why did corruption emerge with the republic, and why has it continued structurally until now?”

What happened in the 1950s is the closest mirror to what happened when the republic was founded five years earlier. It is not surprising that there have been almost no films about Indonesia after the physical revolution, especially since the New Order. The process through which Indonesians can identify themselves as a nation feels like a child going through a traumatic phase. The Physical Revolution was portrayed as a coherent, orderly process in New Order cinema and the years after.

Between the two sides, there was no middle ground. The only exceptions were sympathetic Dutch journalists, native spies, or rebels against the Republican forces. The government reduced the revolution to just an attempt to push out the Dutch, who wanted to come back after the proclamation of independence. After the Curfew shows a different side, where the Physical Revolution was far from a neat process. Instead, there were many illegal executions, along with riots targeting white and Chinese citizens.

Different groups took part in the revolution, often clashing because of ideological differences. When the revolution was depoliticized, it looked a lot like a polite, controlled dinner party.

After the Curfew still has a relevant message to convey today. Despite its potential and limitations, today’s society is still wondering about the historical moments discussed in this film. In other words, if we reimagined the film today, would Ismail’s message still be the same, or would it be framed in a completely different way?

The theme of veterans does not have to be limited to ill-fated ex-soldiers. It can also apply to regime reformers who were disillusioned by the political changes they hoped for but failed to deliver on. The historical moment chosen in the film clearly shows a partisan attitude. On the other hand, legal efforts to change the regime were relatively successful. They painted an image of the urban middle class—politically aware and speaking up for the lower classes.

However, how can a film like After the Curfew express the political disillusionment of those who played a role in such a change? Once again, the film is a social representation of the characters it shows. Iskandar represents the disillusioned petty bourgeoisie, Puja is the gambler and pimp, and Gunawan is the opportunist who still uses the revolution as a shield. These are just a few examples of how the film represents society.

The dilemma in After the Curfew ends with pessimism, even though we know that the police patrol shot Iskandar dead. He did not die heroically. However, Iskandar’s anger, in contrast, was just a casual political outburst. Iskandar’s character, though, also highlights a limitation of After the Curfew—he sinks into melancholy and prolonged psychological struggle. Still, from the film’s pessimism, we learn that the system always asks people to correct the failures of political change while also imagining other possibilities.

References

• Anderson, B. R. O’G. (1972). The Idea of Power in Javanese Culture. In S. P. Huntington & L. E. Harrison (Eds.), Culture and Politics in a Changing World (pp. 37-64). Westview Press.
• Anwar, D. (1995). Revolution and Politics in Post-Colonial Indonesia: Social Class Struggles in the 1950s. Southeast Asia Research, 3(1), 45-67.
• Cribb, R. (1991). The Indonesian Revolution: A Short History. Oxford University Press.
• Emmerson, D. K. (1983). Indonesia’s Elite: Political Culture and Cultural Politics. Princeton University Press.
• Ismail, U. (Director). (1954). After the Curfew [Film]. Perf. Widodo, H. S., & B. W. M. Moesa.
• Picket, G. (2009). The Indonesian Political Elite and the Evolution of Post-Revolutionary Power. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 40(2), 241-260.
• Ricklefs, M. C. (2008). A History of Modern Indonesia since c. 1300 (4th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Van Klinken, G. (2007). Indonesia’s New Order: The Roles of the Military and the State. Cornell Southeast Asia Program.