Sundance Award : Special Jury Prize, artistic vision - "Can"
2012 Sundance Film Festival, the top gathering for independent movies made outside of Hollywood's major studios.
Turkish Cinema Newsletter Link
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Review | Slow-Moving But Visually Potent
REVIEW:
Nuri Bilge Ceylan Builds a Slow-Moving But Visually Potent Once Upon a Time in Anatolia by Michelle Orange
MOVIELINE SCORE: 8½
Tectonic pacing builds to a series of imperceptible and yet earth-moving moments in Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, a habeas corpus procedural stretched across two and a half discursive hours. The setup -- a policeman, a lawyer, and a doctor head into the Turkish countryside -- has the ring of an old joke, something Ceylan never forgets as the groups's long night and next day wears on. A mix of mordant wit and metaphysical waxing carries the men toward their respective fates, each having more to do with the buried body they are seeking than it first appears.
Technically, the search for the body of a local garage-owner named Yasar is led by a decent but fraying police commissioner named Naci (Yilmaz Erdogan). Sawing Naci’s last nerve is the tormented murder suspect, Kenan (Firat Tanis), whose claim of forgetting exactly where his victim is buried keeps the caravan moving from spot to remote spot all through the night.
Technically, the search for the body of a local garage-owner named Yasar is led by a decent but fraying police commissioner named Naci (Yilmaz Erdogan). Sawing Naci’s last nerve is the tormented murder suspect, Kenan (Firat Tanis), whose claim of forgetting exactly where his victim is buried keeps the caravan moving from spot to remote spot all through the night.
Prosecutor Nusret (Taner Birsel) is tagging along in case the body actually turns up, as is Doctor Cemal (Muhammet Uzuner). Despite Turkish genes and enigmatically pitted cheeks, everyone eventually agrees that the former bears a resemblance to Clark Gable; the latter enjoys the consensus that he is still a young man with his whole life ahead of him, though he wears the weight of a recent divorce in his handsome face. The only shared opinion about the comically rotund Arab Ali (Ahmet Mumtaz Taylan) is that he should probably talk less and drive more. When he does speak, however, it becomes clear that Arab is the only one of the men with an untroubled perspective on life, a viable blend of rural pragmatism and a lyrical sense of life’s story.
The first half of the film comprises scenes of casual en route quibbling -- the dialogue is permeated by the narcissism of small, mostly tribal differences -- about who makes better yogurt, who is peeing too often, and who knows the fastest way where. At each hopeful juncture the men pile out of their cars and fall into new configurations. In one of the first stops the doctor and the driver compare moods -- where one sees the seemingly pointless night as a Beckett play, the other finds a fairy tale. Later, when the men stop for the night at the compound of a local Mukhtar (Ercan Kesal), the prosecutor tells the doctor the story of a young woman who predicted her own death -— a cherished allegory the doctor dismisses on medical grounds. But if he’s right, the question lingers: What meaning is left in the rational world?
The answer, or one possible answer, or maybe just a refusal of the question, arrives in the form of a woman. The appearance of the Mukhtar’s beauteous teenage daughter (Cansu Demirci) breaks the film’s all-male filibuster, and to welcome her Ceylan rolls out a brocaded cinematic carpet. In contrast to the previous hour’s lighting scheme of cold-beamed, dueling headlights, the girl’s singular, incandescent approach feels celestial. Balancing an oil lamp on a platter of brimming teacups, she lowers the glasses before the innocent and condemned alike. Despite not getting a line (or even a credit in the press notes), she’s meant to embody everything that’s worth living for in a low-down, dirty world.
Such a pity, the men remark, that it will all be wasted on a backwater town. It’s a literal spotlight of a sequence, and I suspect if Ceylan weren’t so expert at stretching his weakness for the obvious across such a vast and blissfully well-composed canvas, it would make a splotchier impact. For this skill he is often compared to Bresson and Antonioni, and if Ceylan shares his characters’ hopes for Turkey’s acceptance into the European Union, I imagine his inclusion in the tradition Pauline Kael called “Come-as-the-sick-soul-of-Europe parties” would be flattering on geographical terms alone. He’s too funny and multi-faceted to be trapped by Euro-arthouse cliché, though, too interested in the absurdist flipside of existential dread.
When the sun comes up and the body is finally, dreadfully unearthed, Anatolia (from the Greek for “sunrise”) is only half over. The more details the men collect and record, the less they seem to know -- or want to know -- and the further their minds drift to women, who are mentioned often and without warning, as if to confirm the heart of every moody silence.
Silence and sound are deployed as artfully as Ceylan’s sweeping master shots are. In lieu of a soundtrack he contrasts near and far noises, interior voices and exterior perspectives, a layering effect that either culminates or terminates in the final scene, where the music of children playing outside a hospital mingles with the visceral notes of a body being broken down like a roast chicken. It becomes impossible to hear one without the other, hard as you might try.
Bildiri | 82 Signatures (Turkish Article)
Yeni yıla Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Sinema Genel Müdürü Mesut Cem Erkul’un açıklamaları ile başladık. Sn. Erkul’un “Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığınca, Türk filmlerini destekleme konusunda yeni bir mekanizma oluşturularak gişe yapan filmlerin yanı sıra, tüm aile bireylerinin birlikte izleyebileceği, genel izleyiciye hitap eden yapımların teşvik edilmesini” de içeren açıklamalarını şaşkınlıkla takip ettik. Öncelikle, Sinema Genel Müdürlüğü’nün Ticaret ya da Sanayi değil hâlâ Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı’nın bünyesinde olduğunu hatırlatmak isteriz. Kültürel, sanatsal ürünler hiçbir zaman kâr / zarar hesabı ile değerlendirilmemelidir.
Sinemamız son on yıldır istikrarlı bir yükseliş içindedir: Filmlerin kalitesinin artmasının yanı sıra, sinemamız büyük festivallerde kendisine daha fazla yer bulmakta ve ödüller kazanmaktadır. Birçok önemli festivalde son dönem Türkiye sineması gösterimleri yapılmakta, ülke sinemamız her geçen gün güçlenmektedir. Tüm bunlar yurtdışında Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı’nın milyonlarca lira harcayarak yapabileceği tanıtımdan çok daha kuvvetli ve kalıcı bir tanıtıma olanak sağlamaktadır. Bu başarı ancak sanatçının özgürlüğü ve ortaya çıkan yapımların özgünlüğüyle açıklanabilir. Sinemayı özgür bir sanat olarak görenler için bu durum son derece açıktır. Bunun anlamını kavrayamayanlarsa bu başarıyı yok saymakta ve sanat sinemasını âtıl hale getirmek için kendi lobilerini sürdürmektedir. Sinema Genel Müdürlüğü’nün en önemli görevi sinemamızdaki bu yükselişi sürdürmek için gerekli çabaları göstermek olmalıdır.
Bu yükselişte şüphesiz Sinema Genel Müdürlüğü’nün (eski adıyla Telif Hakları ve Sinema Genel Müdürlüğü’nün) sinema filmlerinin yapımına verdiği desteklerin önemli bir katkısı olmuştur. Sinemayı bir sanat dalı olarak gören biz sinemacılar artık bu desteklerin daha profesyonelce ve yeni ihtiyaçlar da gözetilerek düzenlenip genişletilmesi taraftarıyken Genel Müdürümüzün yaptığı tespit ve tanımlar bizi endişeye sevk etmiştir. Sinemamızı temsil eden en üst düzeydeki bürokratlardan olan Sinema Genel Müdürümüzün yaptığı açıklamadan bir bölümü paylaşmak isteriz: ´´Eskiden kahramanlık filmlerine, tarihi Türk filmlerine gidilir, çıkıldığı zaman onun etkisinde kalınırdı. Bir Malkoçoğlu vesaire etkilerdi... Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı da engellilerin, Türk ailesinin yapısını güçlendirici eserlerin ortaya çıkmasında çok istekli... Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Değerlendirme ve Sınıflandırma Kurulu, bilindiği gibi filmleri değerlendiriyor. Bu teşvik mekanizmasını genel izleyiciye 100, 7--13 yas¸ arasına 85, 13--18 yas¸ arasına 75 olarak oranlarsak ticari olarak da teşvik etmek mümkün olabilir. Bu yöntemi de deneyeceğiz.”
Son on yıldır Türkiye sinemasını uluslararası festivallerde temsil eden filmlere bakıldığında bu açıklamanın neye karşılık geldiğini sorgulamak gerektiğini düşünüyoruz. Bu bakış açısıyla yaklaşılsaydı son yıllarda uluslararası başarılar kazanan filmlerin birçoğu desteklenemezdi. Kurgulanmaya çalışılan bu teorik zeminin hem sanatın tümünde ve doğal olarak sinemada tek bir karşılığı vardır; sansür ve adam kayırma. Sanatın doğasına, maddi koşullarla ve çerçevesi müphem Türk aile değerleriyle sınır çizmek kabul edilemez. Bu tanımlamalarda aslında filmlerin daha çekilmeden sansüre uğraması, belirli bir çizgideki sinemanın teşvik edilmesi, zaten kâr etme amacı taşıyan ticari yapımların bir daha ödüllendirilmesi gibi Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı’nın asli görevi olmayan birçok amaç güdüldüğü görülmektedir.
Biz aşağıda imzası olan sinemacılar olarak Sinema Genel Müdürlüğü’nün hazırladığı ama bizim hiçbir haberimiz olmayan bu değişikliklerin bir an önce bizlerle paylaşılmasını talep ediyoruz. Sinemamızın sorunlarını bizzat muhatapları olan bizlerle tespit edip çözümlerin beraberce geliştirilmesi gerektiğine inanıyoruz. ´´
Aliye Uçar, Aslı Ertürk, Aslı Filiz, Aslı Özge, Aydın Bağardı, Aziz Akal, Baran Seyhan, Belma Baş, Belmin Söylemez, Bingöl Elmas, Biket İlhan, Çayan Demirel, Çiğdem Vitrinel, Dersu Yavuz Altun, Derviş Zaim, Durul Taylan, Ebru Şeremetli, Emre Yeksan, Ender Yeşildağ, Enis Rıza, Funda Özyurt, Göktuğ Özgül, Hakkı Kurtuluş, Hasan Özgen, Haşmet Topaloğlu, Hikmet Yaşar Yenigün, Hüseyin Karabey, İlksen Başarır, İnan Temelkuran, Kutluğ Ataman, M. Caner Alper, Mahmut Fazıl Coşkun, Mecit Beştepe, Mehmet Binay, Mehmet Eryılmaz, Mehmet Güleryüz, Melik Saraçoğlu, Meral Okay, Metin Avdaç, Murat Düzgünoğlu, Murat Saraçoğlu, Mustafa Temiztas, Mustafa Ünlü, Nadir Öperli, Nalan Sakızlı, Nida Karabol, Nur Sürer, Orhan Eskisoy, Ozan Turgut, Ömer Tuncer, Ömür Atay, Önder Çakar, Özcan Alper, Özgür Candan, Özgür Doğan, Özkan Küçük, Pelin Esmer, Rüya Köksal, Selim Demirdelen, Selim Evci, Semih Dindar, Semih Kaplanoğlu, Seren Yüce, Serkan Acar, Sevilay Demirci, Seyfettin Tokmak, Seyfi Teoman, Seyhan Kaya, Şenay Ertorun, Tarık Tufan, Tolga Esmer, Tolga Örnek, Tuncel Kurtiz, Tülin Özen, Türker Korkmaz, Ümit Ünal, Veli Kahraman, Yağmur Taylan, Yamaç Okur, Yasin Ali Türkeri, Yeşim Ustaoğlu, Zeki Demirkubuz.
Sinemamız son on yıldır istikrarlı bir yükseliş içindedir: Filmlerin kalitesinin artmasının yanı sıra, sinemamız büyük festivallerde kendisine daha fazla yer bulmakta ve ödüller kazanmaktadır. Birçok önemli festivalde son dönem Türkiye sineması gösterimleri yapılmakta, ülke sinemamız her geçen gün güçlenmektedir. Tüm bunlar yurtdışında Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı’nın milyonlarca lira harcayarak yapabileceği tanıtımdan çok daha kuvvetli ve kalıcı bir tanıtıma olanak sağlamaktadır. Bu başarı ancak sanatçının özgürlüğü ve ortaya çıkan yapımların özgünlüğüyle açıklanabilir. Sinemayı özgür bir sanat olarak görenler için bu durum son derece açıktır. Bunun anlamını kavrayamayanlarsa bu başarıyı yok saymakta ve sanat sinemasını âtıl hale getirmek için kendi lobilerini sürdürmektedir. Sinema Genel Müdürlüğü’nün en önemli görevi sinemamızdaki bu yükselişi sürdürmek için gerekli çabaları göstermek olmalıdır.
Bu yükselişte şüphesiz Sinema Genel Müdürlüğü’nün (eski adıyla Telif Hakları ve Sinema Genel Müdürlüğü’nün) sinema filmlerinin yapımına verdiği desteklerin önemli bir katkısı olmuştur. Sinemayı bir sanat dalı olarak gören biz sinemacılar artık bu desteklerin daha profesyonelce ve yeni ihtiyaçlar da gözetilerek düzenlenip genişletilmesi taraftarıyken Genel Müdürümüzün yaptığı tespit ve tanımlar bizi endişeye sevk etmiştir. Sinemamızı temsil eden en üst düzeydeki bürokratlardan olan Sinema Genel Müdürümüzün yaptığı açıklamadan bir bölümü paylaşmak isteriz: ´´Eskiden kahramanlık filmlerine, tarihi Türk filmlerine gidilir, çıkıldığı zaman onun etkisinde kalınırdı. Bir Malkoçoğlu vesaire etkilerdi... Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı da engellilerin, Türk ailesinin yapısını güçlendirici eserlerin ortaya çıkmasında çok istekli... Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Değerlendirme ve Sınıflandırma Kurulu, bilindiği gibi filmleri değerlendiriyor. Bu teşvik mekanizmasını genel izleyiciye 100, 7--13 yas¸ arasına 85, 13--18 yas¸ arasına 75 olarak oranlarsak ticari olarak da teşvik etmek mümkün olabilir. Bu yöntemi de deneyeceğiz.”
Son on yıldır Türkiye sinemasını uluslararası festivallerde temsil eden filmlere bakıldığında bu açıklamanın neye karşılık geldiğini sorgulamak gerektiğini düşünüyoruz. Bu bakış açısıyla yaklaşılsaydı son yıllarda uluslararası başarılar kazanan filmlerin birçoğu desteklenemezdi. Kurgulanmaya çalışılan bu teorik zeminin hem sanatın tümünde ve doğal olarak sinemada tek bir karşılığı vardır; sansür ve adam kayırma. Sanatın doğasına, maddi koşullarla ve çerçevesi müphem Türk aile değerleriyle sınır çizmek kabul edilemez. Bu tanımlamalarda aslında filmlerin daha çekilmeden sansüre uğraması, belirli bir çizgideki sinemanın teşvik edilmesi, zaten kâr etme amacı taşıyan ticari yapımların bir daha ödüllendirilmesi gibi Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı’nın asli görevi olmayan birçok amaç güdüldüğü görülmektedir.
Biz aşağıda imzası olan sinemacılar olarak Sinema Genel Müdürlüğü’nün hazırladığı ama bizim hiçbir haberimiz olmayan bu değişikliklerin bir an önce bizlerle paylaşılmasını talep ediyoruz. Sinemamızın sorunlarını bizzat muhatapları olan bizlerle tespit edip çözümlerin beraberce geliştirilmesi gerektiğine inanıyoruz. ´´
Aliye Uçar, Aslı Ertürk, Aslı Filiz, Aslı Özge, Aydın Bağardı, Aziz Akal, Baran Seyhan, Belma Baş, Belmin Söylemez, Bingöl Elmas, Biket İlhan, Çayan Demirel, Çiğdem Vitrinel, Dersu Yavuz Altun, Derviş Zaim, Durul Taylan, Ebru Şeremetli, Emre Yeksan, Ender Yeşildağ, Enis Rıza, Funda Özyurt, Göktuğ Özgül, Hakkı Kurtuluş, Hasan Özgen, Haşmet Topaloğlu, Hikmet Yaşar Yenigün, Hüseyin Karabey, İlksen Başarır, İnan Temelkuran, Kutluğ Ataman, M. Caner Alper, Mahmut Fazıl Coşkun, Mecit Beştepe, Mehmet Binay, Mehmet Eryılmaz, Mehmet Güleryüz, Melik Saraçoğlu, Meral Okay, Metin Avdaç, Murat Düzgünoğlu, Murat Saraçoğlu, Mustafa Temiztas, Mustafa Ünlü, Nadir Öperli, Nalan Sakızlı, Nida Karabol, Nur Sürer, Orhan Eskisoy, Ozan Turgut, Ömer Tuncer, Ömür Atay, Önder Çakar, Özcan Alper, Özgür Candan, Özgür Doğan, Özkan Küçük, Pelin Esmer, Rüya Köksal, Selim Demirdelen, Selim Evci, Semih Dindar, Semih Kaplanoğlu, Seren Yüce, Serkan Acar, Sevilay Demirci, Seyfettin Tokmak, Seyfi Teoman, Seyhan Kaya, Şenay Ertorun, Tarık Tufan, Tolga Esmer, Tolga Örnek, Tuncel Kurtiz, Tülin Özen, Türker Korkmaz, Ümit Ünal, Veli Kahraman, Yağmur Taylan, Yamaç Okur, Yasin Ali Türkeri, Yeşim Ustaoğlu, Zeki Demirkubuz.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Sundance 2012 | Can by Raşit Çelikezer
Loving Istanbul couple Ayşe and Cemal need only a child to complete their life together, but they cannot conceive. To salvage Cemal’s pride, they resort to illegal means to procure a baby. This wild grab at a more perfect life proves their undoing, leading the couple to spiral toward separate futures. The couple's estrangement is intertwined with the film’s parallel narrative, in which a distant and neglectful single mom is raising her little boy, Can.
Director/screenwriter Raşit Çelikezer conjures up a compelling tale about family, pride, and what we risk when we fail to value what we have. The veteran Turkish cast, including Selen Uçer (Ayşe) and Serdar Orçin (Cemal), allows our understanding of each character to evolve throughout the story. Can honors the tradition ofYeşilçam—shorthand for the golden age of Turkish cinema. As such,Can infuses its traditional premise with an inventive storytelling structure and a fresh take on family sorrows as old as time.
- H.Z.
DIRECTOR Raşit Çelikezer SCREENWRITER Raşit Çelikezer Turkey, 2011, 106 min, color, Turkish with English subtitlesPRODUCER Raşit Çelikezer COPRODUCERS Burak Akidil, Umman KüçükyılmazCINEMATOGRAPHER Ali Özel EDITOR Ahmet Can Cakirca ART DIRECTOR Ayşen Gürevin Karaytuğ MUSIC Tamer Ciray CAST Selen Uçer, Serdar Orçin, Berkan Demirbag, Erkan Avci
BIO: Raşit Çelikezer was born in Izmir, Turkey. He holds a degree in cinema and television from Dokuz Eylül University. Çelikezer's short films, including Memories of an Ordinary Day (1996), Cocoon (1994), and Duet (1993), have screened at numerous film festivals. He has directed more than 300 episodes of 12 different series for Turkish television. His first feature, 2008's Three Apples Fell from the Sky (Gökten 3 Elma Düştü), won eight festival awards. Çelikezer's plays have been staged across Turkey and translated widely.
CONTACT: Rasit Celikezer
rasitcelikezer@gmail.com
Transcript of the Guardian interview with Nuri Bilge Ceylan at BFI Southbank
Transcript of the Guardian interview with Nuri Bilge Ceylan at BFI Southbank
Onstage at BFI Southbank, the Turkish director tells Geoff Andrew about what made him switch from photography to film-making, why his latest film is a departure from the autobiographical works of the past and why he never wants to shoot on film again
[after clip from The Small Town]
Geoff Andrew: If you haven't seen the film, you may not know that the elderly gentleman in the film is Nuri's father and the elderly woman there is Nuri's mother. And one of the other characters in the film is a cousin. Any more relatives in that scene?
Nuri Bilge Ceylan: No. [audience laughs]
GA: I think that highlights a certain intimacy of approach towards film-making in Nuri's cinema. This film is about growing up in a small town in Turkey. How close is it to your own experience?
NBC: Quite close, actually. But watching this clip was a surprise for me. I haven't seen it for maybe 10 years now; I never watch my films. The ADR, the dubbing, was terrible. And we didn't have a good camera in that film; I financed it myself. We had professionals doing the ADR and it didn't fit, especially for the children's and women's parts. So it was a bad experience for me, and after that I decided to shoot with location sound always. Yes, this is a very autobiographical film. I remember many things and they come together here. But you forget which bits are real and which are fiction. I think scriptwriting and film-making is a kind of collage, and it's very chaotic – it's like writing music: you try to make everything in harmony and for that harmony to happen, sometimes you add some sugar, some salt here and there. So many different things come together. And most of the things in the film are from my sister's memories, especially the dialogues. But the first part is set in a classroom, and that I wrote myself.
GA: And there are elements of Chekhov in there, as well?
NBC: Yes, actually in all my films I believe there is an element of Chekhov, because Chekhov wrote so many stories. He had stories about almost every situation, and I love them very much. So maybe he's influenced the way I look at life. Life follows Chekhov for me, in a way. After reading Chekhov, you begin to see the same kind of situations in life. And in the scriptwriting stage, I remember the stories somehow, so yes, Chekhov is here.
GA: You mention that you wrote some of this, and some with your sister. You take photographs and make films, and your sister [Emine Ceylan] is also an able and prolific photographer. Did you come from an artistic family? And how did you get into film-making?
NBC: Actually, when I was a child, there was no art at all around me. I was living in a small town and the only art form around was maybe folk music, and maybe film. But there were no art exhibitions or anything like that. I sometimes wonder myself how I inclined to art. I think maybe it started when I was in high school, when I was living in Istanbul. I really don't know, but me, my sister and my cousin all somehow inclined towards art. I remember someone gave me a present of a book about photography. Maybe that started it. So you should be very careful when you buy presents for a small child. [audience laughs] I think that book changed my life – it made photography seem a very enjoyable game. I made a darkroom and printed photographs, and with time I began to realise that it's an art. And it grew somehow. My sister started photography after me.
GA: And how did you move into film-making from photography?
NBC: I don't remember very well, but in those days, there were no video cameras, so the idea of film-making was very difficult. It was in the hands of only certain people. Even during military service, long after university, I still didn't think about making movies. Like everybody I liked to watch movies but I think it was reading books about film-making that changed my life. It was reading Roman Polanski's autobiograpy during military service that influenced me – his life in that book seemed very adventurous, starting from absolute zero in a Nazi camp up to Hollywood. And in that book, film-making seemed easy to me. So I began to read many books about cinema, including some technical books. One day I acted in a short film which was shot in 35mm and I saw all the stages of film-making; after it was done, I bought that camera. It was an Arriflex 2C, and it worked like a machine gun, very noisy. The most difficult thing is to start, and even after I bought the camera, I couldn't make a film for 10 years. But after that I made a short film with this camera. First I started myself, as if shooting photographs. But then I couldn't do focus pulling by myself, it was impossible, so I added an assistant in the middle of the film. And with two people, I made a short film. My family acted in it, and I think that was my most difficult film. After that, again with only two people, I made my first feature film, this one. Of course the actors also helped us by carrying everything, and so I began to think it was possible to make a movie. After that, it was much easier.
GA: This leads us very nicely to the next clip, which is from Clouds of May.
[runs clip from Clouds of May]
GA: Obviously, Clouds of May grew partly out of its predecessor, and in that clip, we've almost seen the shooting of that earlier scene. Do you feel that your films do grow out of each other in some way? You're not making sequels, but there is some thread from one to the other.
NBC: I think so, yes. Somehow, when I finished one of these films, I felt that there is something more to be said about these subjects, until the end of Uzak. Maybe because I know what happened after, and it's quite close to my life. But these decisions are quite instinctive and never calculated before. The decisions are made long after the earlier film is finished.
GA: The film-maker in that clip is obviously using his parents to make his film. He's come back to the small town from the city, and he switches the camera on when people are not looking and he's always trying to, in a way, exploit his family. Was there an element of self-criticism in this film?
NBC: I think so. Video cameras were born before the making of this film, so I bought one to experiment and investigate. So I was in the region and shooting many things, interviewing my father and mother, asking questions to my grandmother. And I also tried to write a script. When I watched what I shot with the video camera when I was back in Istanbul, I saw that I was very selfish. My grandmother would be telling me something and I wasn't listening; I would be thinking about something to do with the film, things like that. That created something like a guilty conscience in me, I didn't like myself. And I think that in most film-makers and artists, and especially city people, this kind of narcissism exists. These people in the countryside, they just give everything they have, and you just take. But when they come to the city, we don't reciprocate. So Uzak was a continuation of that scenario.
GA: What's interesting about this stage in your career, into Uzak, is that you were writing, directing, photographing, editing, producing and even selling the film – you were doing everything, which is very unusual. Was that too much for you or was it something that you enjoyed doing?
NBC: I never worked on other films, as assistant director or anything, so I never learned how other directors worked. I learned everything from books myself, and I learned every aspect of film-making, including sales and marketing. Even in Cannes, I was selling the film myself, and they said that there was only one other director who sold his films himself – [Abderrehmane] Sissako from Africa. It's unusual, and distributors were a bit surprised. I learned how to do it but I don't do that any more. Now I have a producer and a cinematographer, everything. It is unnecessary, but at that time, I wanted to know it. I think a director should know many things, especially the technical aspects; otherwise you are a slave of the technical people. If you know the technical aspects, you can communicate with them and direct them much better.
GA: In this film, in the scene we've just watched, you're prompting your father, telling him what to say. Was that how it worked in reality?
NBC: Yes. It reflects the shooting of my first film quite realistically, I think. It was a mess because we were just two people and we were trying to control everybody. It was such a mess.
GA: One of the things you've mentioned, and it's come up in both clips, is what is happening to Turkish life in terms of people moving away from the country to the city. With Uzak, you made your first film in the city and it concerns a photographer living in Istanbul who is visited by a cousin from the small town. Let's have a look now at Uzak.
[runs clip from Uzak]
GA: One reason I chose that clip is because we have a new member of Nuri's family appearing on the screen – the woman in the street is Nuri's wife, Ebru. But the other thing is that this is a wonderful scene, of a young guy eyeing up the girl and trying to look cool in his sunglasses, and then the car alarm goes off at the most inopportune time. It's a very funny scene, and there is a lot of dry humour in your films. It reminds me of Buster Keaton, very underplayed. How important is it to you to have some humour or comedy in your films?
NBC: I think I see life like this. I don't plan to inject humour into the stories. I just want to be as realistic as possible and I think that real life is full of humour. When I'm alone at home, I find myself in many funny situations. If I catch myself in the mirror sometimes, my expression is so uncontrolled. So I don't really plan them. But with this film, I was a bit surprised that people laugh at this situation.
GA: Later in this film, the cousins start not getting on with each other, and the photographer finds this invader a bit of a nuisance. So, one evening, he starts watching pornography, but when the cousin comes in, he quickly switches to a Tarkovsky film, the film that he'd been watching with the cousin earlier as a ploy to get the cousin to go to bed. And this is rather ironic, especially since you're rather a fan of Tarkovsky, aren't you?
NBC: Yes, he's one of the directors I like. But I chose Tarkovsky for that scene, not because I like him but because he's more appropriate – he has long shots and I needed to contrast this with the kind of films the village guy would be used to. And I needed an ideal for the photographer, and Tarkovsky was the most suitable. In general, the critics thought that he watched Tarkovsky in order to get rid of the cousin. But that was not my intention.
GA: Critics are always wrong. [laughs]
NBC: Maybe I made something wrong. [laughs] But in an earlier scene, the photographer has a discussion with friends, and one friend criticises him for losing his ideals and they blame him. So when he gets home, he tries to create a bond, to find his ideals again. That's why he watches Tarkovsky. And he thinks that maybe he can regain his fire and enthusiasm. He doesn't mind the other guy at all, but as a side-effect the cousin is bored of course. So when the other guy leaves to go to bed, the situation changes and something triggers in him and he loses his enthusiasm again and he shifts to porn because it's easier. And he wants to get rid of the violence inside himself. That's why he switches to porn.
GA: One of the things that strikes me about this film is that a lot of it is shot with very, very little dialogue, and that seems to be a common thing in your films. Do you think that people express themselves better without words?
NBC: I don't know, actually. I don't try to make my characters silent. In the script, that scene had a lot of dialogue. But in the shoot, it's the only place to understand whether what you wrote works or not. Always during a shoot, I try to find more balance in the situation, so I end up taking dialogue out here and there and finally there's no dialogue. I feel the balance is reached at that point and I don't know what to do about it. It just convinces me more like that, somehow. And of course, dialogue should be treated very carefully. I've investigated this a lot. I've recorded many conversations in order to understand the nature of it. It doesn't follow a logical progression. Somebody says something, the other person says something entirely different; if you analyse it, you see it is that way. So dialogue, even if you use it, it shouldn't be so logical and it shouldn't carry much information about the film's secrets or the meaning of the film. Dialogue, for me, only works if they talk nonsense, anything unrelated to the film. I like to do this as much as possible. I try to tell the meaning of the film without dialogue – with the situation, the gestures, and so on. This is my intention, but maybe I'm not successful.
GA: Well, you seem to be succeeding – Uzak won a big prize in Cannes and you've been winning them ever since. We saw your wife in that clip, so now let's have a look at Climates.
[runs clip]
GA: You may have recognised the actor in that scene. You wrote the film with Ebru and you play the two main characters yourself, and it's a film about the breakup of a relationship. It's one of the most honest films about that, and one of the most depressingly honest films about masculinity. It's just extraordinary and it goes into many areas that most other films wouldn't even touch. Was it quite painful to make?
NBC: No, not at all. Actually, we are not the kind of couple who are afraid to talk about the dark side of life. We like to talk about it. So if you deal with the dark side of life, you're safer – it's like therapy – and the dark stuff doesn't collect and grow. You cut the head of the snake when it's small. So it was a technical matter, not hard at all for us.
GA: Why did you decide to play the two roles yourselves?
NBC: What I wanted to tell with this film was something which is hard to explain and express to other people. I didn't want to struggle with how to explain to actors how they should act. I wanted them to behave based more on their inclination. Also, when we wrote and talked about the film on holiday, my wife and I, we made a test shot, acting ourselves and we liked the result. So that's another reason why we did it. They didn't like my acting in Turkey, in general, [audience laughs] but in the west, they liked it better, I think. But, fortunately, everybody liked my wife's acting.
GA: This was your first film shot using technical technology. I remember that shot of the two of you on the beach, with the boat going past in the background, and everything's perfectly in focus. I remember seeing that in Cannes and being astonished by it. And the whole film is using digital camerawork in a way that a lot of people haven't pushed it forward. Do you think digital technology is opening up new avenues of expressiveness?
NBC: Definitely. I think it has still more unknown potential to be able to express something deeper or hidden. So film seems like nonsense – why shoot on film any more? This film was shot using old digital technology and now it's already even much better. Film is expensive and there are many disadvantages. For me, this is it. I'll never go back to film for movie-making or photography. I think we should be open and use the advantages of this new technology to express our deeper emotions.
GA: Moving on now to Three Monkeys – that seems to be a rather expressionist film, in the sense that you have manipulated the colours to make something that's almost monochrome, apart from these occasional flashes of red. It's almost green and yellow, the image is sickly. It almost looks like an expressionist painting.
NBC: I don't know. Actually, I don't like expressionism – I prefer impressionism, because the feelings and emotions are too underlined in expressionism. But many critics have said that this film is expressionist – maybe they are right. I like to be more subtle and more hidden, making the audience more active. As for the colours, it's natural that when one looks at something, everybody sees something different. When I look at the world, this is kind of what I see. My photography may have an influence on this – I see colours in this way. When I engaged in the colour grading, I didn't realise that I had distanced myself from these colours that much. And of course, in this film, I also wanted to isolate the characters a bit. This isolation I made in other ways: for example, I didn't show any faces other than these characters. And also these colours helped this isolation a bit. Actually, I didn't do much: I just increased the contrast and desaturated the colours and then selected one colour, generally red, and pushed it a bit after desaturation.
GA: The other thing is that you're using sound in a very eloquent way to reinforce certain things. You've done that almost from the beginning.
NBC: I don't like to be realistic in sound. For instance, we heard a sound in the film that I didn't hear before. Our ears are very selective and we just hear what we want to hear. So, for the audience, I select some sounds and just show them. With the sound, I can guide the audience a little bit in the way I want, and it gives the scene the atmosphere that I want. Also, if you can tell something with the sound, you don't have to show it.
GA: This film does seem different from the others – partly because it can be described as a crime film. It's not really autobiographical, as far as I can tell, and it has more narrative, albeit elliptical. In a sense, it's much more dramatic. Did you feel that you were making a change here and will you continue down that route?
NBC: I think so, because you can't make autobiograpical films all your life, you know. [audience laughs] After Climates, I felt deep inside that I needed a change. But it doesn't mean that I will go in this direction, I don't know. At the time, I felt I needed a change and I did it. The result may make me change again in another direction, but right now I'm not sure.
GA: OK, let's open it up to the audience now.
GA: OK, let's open it up to the audience now.
Q1: All your films use a different sort of colour palette – whether it's impressionistic or expressionistic, colour design is a big part of your films. Can you say something about your use of colour and what you try to do with it?
NBC: These were the colours for this film. It's hard for me to answer this kind of question because these decisions are all instinctive. For this film, I decided the colours before starting to shoot. I shot some photographs in the locations and I worked on them on the computer and tried to fix the mood for the film. At the end, I got quite close to my intention. But generally, I really don't know – it's all instinctive. I could say something, but it would be a lie. [audience laughs]
Q2: How old were you when you made your first short film [Koza, in 1995]? It got an award in Cannes – did you sense that it was a good film?
NBC: I was quite old, actually, 36 years old. It's much better if you can start much earlier. I spent at least 10 years without doing anything after university, thinking about what to do for a living. When you're young, you're braver and it's better to make mistakes when you're younger. When I made that film, I always thought that it would not make a film. I was shooting something but I never expected Cannes would take it, or that I would show it to other people. I thought I was taking something meaningless. In the editing room, I tried to create a concept or a story out of it. There was something in my mind, but I always thought it would not work. And even after I finished the film, I thought it was shit and that nobody would like it. I asked my friends, "Does it look like a film?" I asked the same question when I made my first feature [The Small Town, 1997]. I remember watching it with my sister at the Berlin film festival where it was premiered, and we looked at each other and we were thinking, "It doesn't look like a film." Watching your old films is really difficult, you don't understand anything. After you finish a film, you are completely blind. You never have the chance to see your film objectively. But I'm the kind of person who always sees things negatively – I always only see the mistakes – so it's painful and I never watch my films.
GA: One thing I'd like to ask – up to and including Uzak, you made your films with very small crews. If you watch the making-of feature for Uzak, you'll see about three people under an umbrella shooting a scene. Now you work with a much larger crew, you're internationally feted, your career is very different in many ways. Does that make it easier or more difficult?
NBC: Actually, both easier and more difficult. It depends on how you look at it. I cannot work like the old days – I am older now and I have less energy. Human beings are creatures that very easily get used to luxuries. Until Uzak, I would shoot my films myself. But now, I can't imagine doing that and it seems to me very difficult. I'm lazy and it seems to me much easier to use a monitor to control the actors, the composition, mise en scène. And I think it should be like this. That's why I work like this now. But on the other hand, it's more difficult. In this film, there were about 20- 25 people behind the camera and everything takes time. To move people from one place to another, we need lorries and things. In Uzak, if you remember, there is a snow scene. It lasted a very short time in Istanbul, the snow stayed for only two days. But we managed to shoot everything we needed in two days because we were so small. With only one Jeep, we could move all the crew, the material, all the actors and we could move quickly. We were much faster. So it was easier in that sense. But then, I used to compromise a lot. If I couldn't solve something, I would change the script and I would adapt myself to many things. Now I compromise less, because I have a producer and he solves many problems, we have more money and we have more people to solve problems. So when you get new possibilities, you don't want to get rid of them. So, both more difficult and easier, I think.
GA: Don't believe what he says about being lazy – I was reading his notes and while editing Three Monkeys, he was sleeping about two hours a night.
Q3: One of the characters in Three Monkeys is a politician. And you include footage of the AK party winning the election. I wonder if you could talk about the political subtext of the film? Also, has the film been received in Turkey as a comment on the politics of Turkey?
NBC: There was more attention to the political aspect of the film in Turkey, but I edited it so that they wouldn't have much room for criticism in that area. I didn't want the film to just be restricted to politics, so despite filming many demonstrations and political rallies, I decided not to include these bits because I wanted to leave this as just a side element of the film. The audience and film critics seem to enjoy bringing up this aspect of the film, but I try to hold it back.
Q4: This has been said before many times: that your compositional style is very similar to [Yasujiro] Ozu, especially in your positioning of the camera at very low level, perhaps knee-height, especially in the scenes inside the house. Did you purposely mimic Ozu or was it something that you did unintentionally? Also, can you say whether this compositional style is particularly important to avoid tracking shots and movement of camera work, as opposed to single shots.
NBC: Yes, he [GA] said the same thing during dinner. Ozu is my favourite director, actually. And yes, I don't move the camera much – but I don't know if that's because of Ozu or because I'm a photographer. I jut don't like to move the camera much, really, because it makes everyone more conscious about the camera. And the height of the camera is mostly decided for me, and I think for Ozu, by the vertical lines in the space. In the books, they say that Ozu put his camera 90cm above the ground but I don't believe it. It depends on the vertical lines – and there are many of those in Japanese houses. But more than that, the psychology of the character is important – if you shoot a person from above, it's different from shooting them from below. I generally like to shoot at mouth level for a portrait. Especially in closeups, even 1cm is very important. That's why you should never leave it to the cinematographer, because the cinematographer never knows how to connect it to the next shot; only the director knows the relationship between the next shot and the previous shot. So the director should carefully place the camera to ensure continuity of the psychology.
Q5: Why did you decide not to use a conventional musical soundtrack?
NBC: I don't like music in cinema, it seems to me like a crutch; if you cannot express something in cinematic ways, then you call the help of the music to underline it. I'm not against it, but if possible I try not to use it. In the editing, I try many pieces of music, but eventually I decide not to use any. And also, the sound of the atmosphere is the nicest sound for me in the cinema, so I prefer to use atmospheric sound instead of music. Because music kills things.
Q6: Why did you call this film Three Monkeys?
NBC: It comes from Confucius originally, where it has a positive meaning, but later it became a negative meaning. It represents our attitude to hiding from reality.
GA: It's see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
NBC: That's the original.
GA: And of course, this film is all about people pretending that something is not happening; it's all about lies.
Q7: I'm interested in the dead boy who appears twice – why did you choose to put him in those two scenes?
NBC: I wanted the boy to appear in scenes where a character needed to be comforted, especially the characters who feel an element of guilt regarding his death.
Q8: We were just wondering about the locations in Three Monkeys, especially the house and where the woman meets the politician. Is it quite close to Koca Mustafa Pasha?
NBC: That's right. It's near Yedikule train station, just opposite it. And we also shot near the Black sea, on the Anatolian side.
GA: And wasn't there something about the house, that it was going to be demolished, so it changed the way you shot it.
NBC: They said so, but they didn't. [audience laughs]
Q9: In one scene, when the boy is looking through the keyhole, we can see the sweat on his face and the way it drops. Was it just a coincidence?
NBC: Some parts of the film are coincidences, some parts aren't. Sometimes you shoot a scene 20-30 times and then you pick out the ones that you think present the detail the best. For example, the shaking of the knife in the kitchen, that's not a coincidence. Sometimes I forget which bits are coincidence and which are not.
GA: Sadly, we have to bring this evening to a close. Please put your hands together to thank Nuri Bilge Ceylan.
Monday, January 09, 2012
‘Once Upon a Time in Anatolia’ is the first masterpiece of 2012
‘Once Upon a Time in Anatolia’ is the first masterpiece of 2012
Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, which recently opened at New York City’s Film Forum, is an effective police procedural that examines the lengthy process of finding the bad guys, believing in the good guys and turning our expectations completely on their head. The Turkish-language film, directed by Nuri Bilge Ceylan, is an expert character study of a group of men with differing opinions of justice and judgment.
In today’s age of Criminal Minds, Law & Order, CSI and their various offshoots, it’s hard to believe that an original police procedural is still possible. Too often the sub-genre has been regimented and standardized into cliche plot occurrences: the dead body on the pavement, the skeptical police investigator, the line of crime scene tape, maybe a pesky journalist asking a few heated questions. We’ve seen it all time and time again, and, for the most part, the term “police procedural” is a death knell, a stamp of rigid formality.
Once Upon a Time in Anatolia is anything but typical. As it follows the travails of a police commissioner, prosecutor, doctor and murder suspect through one night and early morning, all aspects of true police work are on display. There are lengthy conversations about important and not-so-important topics. The characters laugh and cry, always cognizant of the fact that they have been tasked with a difficult job that routinely deals in death and despair. These guys don’t discover a corpse with resignation. They are affected by their findings; they sometimes cannot control their emotions. This is not cinematic bloodshed; it’s real and it hurts.
Because the movie focuses on a crime from a much more realistic perspective, there are also times when the proceedings grow dull. However, it oddly all fits together. These characters have been toiling away for years at their job; occasionally, they are victims of boredom. At 157 minutes, Ceylan’s film includes the full gamut of lows and highs of a police case.
The central plot of the story — and the particulars of the crime — are immaterial. Not much is learned throughout the entire movie. We know that the police officials are transporting a criminal around the rolling hills of Anatolia in search of a buried body. The suspect was drunk when the murder took place and can’t remember exactly where he did his nasty deed. This leads the police on a wild goose chase not to stop any future crime from occurring, but simply to put an exclamation point on a murder that has already taken place. This gives the entire story an “aftermath” feel, as if the prosecutor and company are already conceding that they are too late.
With a light story that meanders to an end, the characters need to be engaging to hold our interest. Thankfully, the characters are interesting, and the assembled actors are top quality. Muhammet Uzuner as Doctor Cemal, Yilmaz Erdogan as Commisar Naci, Taner Birsel as Prosecutor Nusret and Ahmet Mumtaz Taylan as the driver Arab Ali are all distinct, yet seem cut from the same thread. In their conversations, they reveal a great deal about their past sins and their present predicaments. The prosecutor and doctor, in particular, become our two focal points. The man of medicine is a studious, contemplative person, while the man of law can’t help having feelings of anguish over the loss of a loved one. Together, the men weave their way through therapeutic back-and-froths that advance their characters and seem to heal some wounds.
The most memorable aspect of Once Upon a Time in Anatolia is Ceylan’s direction and Gokhan Tiryaki’s exquisite photography. The shadows and lighting over the hilly landscapes all come to life, creating pastoral images that seem painted on a canvas. The countryside of Turkey has never looked more desperate or forlorn — two qualities that seem fitting for the men who populate its folds.
By John Soltes / Publisher / John@HollywoodSoapbox.com
Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
2012
Directed by Nuri Bilge Ceylan
Written by Ercan Kesal, Ebru Ceylan and Nuri Bilge Ceylan
Starring Muhammet Uzuner, Yilmaz Erdogan, Taner Birsel, Ahmet Mumtaz Taylan, Firat Tanis and Ercan Kesal
Running time: 157 minutes
Rating:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)