Turah: Framing Social Structure through Film Structure
As a helpful medium to re-examine the social structures in society, a film has the potential to frame reality through fiction. Social construction often determines the frame to see reality in a film; vice versa, the film reality can also provide framing to examine social construction. Turah (2016) is an example of a film that attempts to present this possibility through its filmic construction, both through its visual sequences and dialogues from its scenes.
 |
| A still from Turah (2016) , made by Wicaksono Wisnu Legowo. |
Set in Tirang, a village which had sprung on a no man’s land, Turah presents a life of poor people who are seemingly isolated and dependent on the “kindness” of a capital owner named Darso (Yono Daryono) who would later become a kind of Juragan (landlord) of Tirang. He actively provides work and a living for the people of Tirang, including Turang (Ubaidillah), and Jadag (Slamet Ambari). The tension grew in the relationship between the residents and their master after the arrival of Pakel (Rudi Iteng), a bachelor graduate from the city who was accused of monopolizing Darso and the residents' livelihoods. The struggle of Jadag and Turah’s families gave way to a hope for a better livelihood, even though both families seemed to contradict each other, they all try to get out of Juragan Darso and Pakel’s system.
This film was presented publicly for the first time at the Silver Screen Awards Asian Feature Film Competition at the 27th Singapore International Film Festival 2016, and it won the Asian Feature Film Special Mention award.[1] A feature debut from Wicaksono Wisnu Legowo, this film won the Geber Award and the NETPAC award at the Jogja-NETPAC Asian Film Festival. Furthermore, the 83-minute film in Tegal dialect was shown at the 9th Bengaluru International Film Festival 2017, India, December 2 - February 9, 2017, with other NETPAC Award Winners. Before Turah, Wisnu had directed a short film, Tobong (2006), which received a special award from the jury at the 2006 Indonesian Film Festival. [2]
Fourcolours Film and Ifa Isfansyah produce Turah. However, unlike Siti (Eddie Cahyono, 2014) which was also produced by Ifa Ifansyah and focused on Siti’s character as a portrait of life's misery, Turah presents a similar theme through framing various characters within a colony without formal identities. Subjects are framed and put together in the construction of a film about class struggle and the system of life.
 |
| Introduction character scene of Turah dan Kanthi (wife of Turah). |
Turah’s fictional plot presents a documentary potential through the setting of a real-life location and situation in Tirang, a fishing village located about 2,5 kilometers from Tegal, Central Java.[3] The choice in casting and language of dialogue thus further strengthens this potential. Wisnu, originally from Tegal, decided to cast actors from the local theatre. This results in the actors’ lively gestures and use of language giving an impression of a real-life scene in the outskirts of Tegal, especially in Jadag’s character, portrayed by Slamet Ambari. His scrawny posture and fluent cursing in ngapak dialect needs no further profiling through narrative construction. Class division becomes apparent through pronunciation and bodily gestures. The same thing can be observed through Turah’s character.
Wisnu mentioned that Turah’s original manuscript was written in Indonesian, and each actor translated the script into a scheme of languages.[4] This scheme classifies the levels of languages used in the film. The director also explained that the characters' names in this film were also classified into a scheme of meanings that resemble the characters’ profile. Thus, language becomes an aesthetic choice, followed by a constructive narrative consequence that can also become a polemic. Presumably, the problem of language in this film can only be perceptible if the audience is fluent in those languages, which may sound the same on the surface with only a vague difference.
In this film, at least three languages are performed in conversations between figures, each occupying a certain level. As a formal language, Indonesian is spoken by government officials, police, journalists, and the exchange between Pakel and Juragan Darso. Proper Javanese is spoken when the residents of Tirang speak to Juragan Darso and government agencies, or the media. Meanwhile, the Tegal language or ngapak is only used between the residents and conversations with Pakel. Jadag is the only character who continuously speaks in ngapak. The reality of language use in Turah presents the notion that everyday language is not merely a means of communication. It becomes a systemized aspect which follows the structure in society. This film even becomes a class marker that represents social, economic, cultural, even political structures.
 |
| Electric generator and bulb serves as property function and narrative signifier |
Another interesting thing is this film’s construction, aptly sewn between incandescent lamps and electric generators' performativity. This film's beginning of life is marked by a loud yapping from the generator, followed by a burning light. The electric generator with the lights becomes a dynamic icon throughout the film that divides the story's chapter. On other occasions, a generator that always fails to turn on would be followed by a dimly glowing lightbulb, or sometimes a dying one, marking an anxious part of Tirang Village's story. When a generator no longer works, life in the same space becomes no longer possible. Tirang Village blacks out, followed by the breaking point of a conflict. The generator, which originates from the set, is used by the director as a visual property and a marker of other significance. His choice to compose the film's visual from the existing space and property raises a narrative consequence that strengthens the logic of the film. Therefore, this visual exploration of presenting a property as a marker of significance can discuss Kampung Tirang’s social context.
The performativity of camera and montage builds the perception of an ambivalent system: isolates and provides a living for its poor inhabitants. This imagination of isolation, both in terms of region (in a physical sense) and its social-economic context, appears through the omnipresent images of Tirang Village in this film. Depictions outside Tirang Village only exist in the image of a gray wall across the estuary, gazed through a subjective camera from Tirang Village’s perspective.
 |
| Camera positioning reveals an image of the social position of Turah, Juragan Darso and Pakel |
Hierarchy of class and social differentiation are apparent through visual exploration that builds an image of the socio-economic life in Tirang Village. The camera also depicts social class and character development in this film. Turah’s characterization appears through the camera’s silent, not quite dynamic disposition. When depicting Turah, the camera frame is always balanced, calm, and lacks any surprise. Visually, Turah is portrayed as a peaceful figure who avoids conflict and tends to walk “straight”. Perhaps, Turah is a general description of people who accepts their condition, even in the most ambivalent system. Even so, Turah also has the progressive potential that can be triggered and deployed to find a way out of the system.
In contrast to Turah, Jadag is presented as a “stray bullet” disturbing the life system's generosity in Tirang Village. This idea is visually displayed through Jadag’s first appearance in the film frame in a scene that breaks out the effect of harmony from the previous scenes, which Turah mostly dominated. In a following shot that runs in 1 minute and 8 seconds, Jadag emerges as a family problem, while Turah stands as the mediator. The camera reveals each character while describing their position and classification in the storyline.
 |
| A introduction scene of Jadag, followed by dynamic camera works sequences. |
|
| Character contras between Jadag and Turah. |
Visually, Jadag is encouraged to appear as a progressive character through a dynamic camera. As a character, he contradicts a society's moral and ethics, which desires peace (which therefore consents to the presence of capital owner, the educated class, and the state system). In contrast to Turah, Jadag is a portrait of people who yearn for their rights, including in the context of class. Both of the characters seem to contrast in many ways, especially in their relationship with women or partners and their families. The juxtaposition between Turah and Jadag, visually and characteristically, reminds us to the real-life social, moral differentiation in society. Turah is the norm, while Jadag becomes an anomaly.
Jadag’s character presents a visual depiction of a living system that allows structural poverty, even though he is not the film's center. The conflict between Jadag and Pakel reminds us of the educational factors that contribute to social inequality, linking with the relationship between villages and cities and between capital owners and workers. The socio-economic frustration in Tirang Village leads to social-moral problems described through Jadag and Turah’s journey with their respective families. The name Turah translates to ‘remnant’, which perhaps describes the character himself as he became the remnants of Jadag’s aimless struggle to get out of Tirang Village’s vicious circle. To become a spark of hope from a struggle to walk away from the system, even if only in a film.
 |
| Turah and Kanthi decided to leave Kampung Tirang. |
Towards the end of the film, something interesting happened when the camera treatment became linear when portraying Jadag and Roji – his son. Especially in the last scenes, Jadag appears in the film frame, which resembles a bridge before entering the next space or situation. The same image also appears when the camera presents Roji’s figure, especially when showing his arrival to see his home again. The camera follows Roji in the same way it follows Jadag; both as objects. This continues until Roji disappears from the film frame and becomes the closing character. This gives the impression that his son might continue the struggle raised through Jadag’s character. The scene ends with a camera dropping as if to become a director’s statement that this story is just a film.
 |
| Jadag walking to his house after leaving from different Kampung. |
 |
| Roji, Jadag’s son. walking from his house to nowhere, similar to Jadag . |
Upon many close looks at this film, we may realize the film’s rich discursive spaces. What the word does not convey is manifested by the camera without any complications. It frames the filmic reality through actual reality, in fact raising more questions on the actual reality. A complete fictional construction – built by the camera and spoken language – becomes the one to frame the actual reality on the location. This film presents the opportunity in the intersection between filmic reality and actual reality through an aesthetic that cannot be separated from society’s reality.
Written in 2017. First published by Jurnal Footage.
Translation by Dini Adanurani.