On one hand, a part of my wants to say the filmmaking isn’t very notable or exceptiona
I stopped there.
^ you shouldn’t have, because his qualifier “on other hand, that’s my favorite part of the movie,” indicates that whatever he wants to say, it ended up being notable and worth mentioning anyway.
—PolarisDiB
It’s worth mentioning, but also worth reduction.
Perhaps he’s wanting someone to elucidate on its qualities to determine aspects that may be informing his ambivalence, for which dismissiveness of his statement will merely serve to leave the content unnoticed or unexceptional?
—PolarisDiB
DiB said, Perhaps he’s wanting someone to elucidate on its qualities to determine aspects that may be informing his ambivalence…
Yeah, that would be cool. FWIW, the opinions expressed in the OP are merely a starting point, not the end—I certainly didn’t mean them to be definitive and complete. As DiB mentioned, the aspects related to the visuals and the set-up for the scenes were my favorite parts of the film; and I also think these are the best parts of the film as well. But perhaps, the simplicity makes me think they’re not as special; or maybe the familiarity of the approach makes it seem less exceptional. I don’t know, but I get two opposing feelings at once: liking the visuals while not thinking it’s so exceptional at the same time. Maybe other people felt this way. Or, better yet, maybe there is someone that articulate reasons the filmmaking is exceptional.
I think I just liked the economy of the filmmaking—the way it conveyed so much with seemingly little (especially without dialogue). I loved that part of the film.
Have you seen the film, DiB? (Somehow I think other filmmakers would appreciate and might be able to speak specifically about some of the technical aspects of the filmmaking. hint-hint.)
Ceylan’s filmmaking takes place almost purely in the framing and what isn’t said but by what can be conveyed through movement and in the eyes. What is exceptional about this method is that it challenges rather than spoon feeding the viewer all the details verbally when all the details are there in front of you. This goes along with the supposed lack of ‘cinematic language’ issue that some may have. A lot can be told and easily expressed in simplicity rather than composing difficult shot based around unnecessarily wordy dialogues.
Yeah, I agree with what you’re saying. I think the filmmaking is really good, but I guess my impression that the filmmaking didn’t feel very “notable or exceptional” stems from a) familiarity with the filmmaking, having seen other directors exhibit the same techniques and approach; b) an ostentatious personal style. In any event, it’s my favorite part of the film, and the economy of the filmmaking really stands out for me. I look forward to checking out more of his films.
Is this the only one that you’ve seen? Climates seems to be the one that everyone can really relate to and see it apart from the rest of his films.
Yeah. I think the local library has Climates, so I’ll try to check that one out.
" The value of the film doesn’t really lie in the drama or the characters, imo."
There is a lot of character detail in the film though, esp Mahmut.
Ceylan isn’t one of those contemplative directors that doesn’t care about his characters. He is often interested in the small details/gestures of human behaviour, and how revealing they can be. ‘Climates’ is like this too. If you don’t pay attention, you miss the signs/clues. On second viewing of ‘Climates’ i realised so much about the male character—played by the director—that i didn’t notice the first time.
Tomas pretty much summed it up. his movies aren’t full of bravado signature shots. that isn’t to say that there aren’t standout shots—there absolutely are!!!—but they don’t linger forever and call too much attention to themselves. Ceylan is more interested in what is happening inside the frame with the characters. Take Climates for example. He focusses on the characters faces to such an incredible degree. He is reminiscent of Bergman in this regard, except unlike Bergman he is more comfortable with extended periods of silence.
about time you watched Distant too.
Climates is worth a look but it’s not his best film imo. it has some of his best shots and moments though.
@Joks
Ceylan isn’t one of those contemplative directors that doesn’t care about his characters. He is often interested in the small details/gestures of human behaviour, and how revealing they can be.
I agree with this. My point is that the character and the story aren’t really that interesting—as in a conventional, more entertaining, drama. The film is closer to Ozu than CCC, imo. Maybe something like Ozu doing Ikiru…well, not quite, but you get what I’m saying.
Tomas pretty much summed it up. his movies aren’t full of bravado signature shots. that isn’t to say that there aren’t standout shots—there absolutely are!!!—but they don’t linger forever and call too much attention to themselves.
Again, I pretty much agree with this. My comment about the filmmaking being non-notable wasn’t a criticism, but a description of the impression I got. I thought this was interesting since I thought the filmmaking was excellent and the best part of the film.
(I’m intentionally not reading your comments about Climates as I like to know as little as possible going in.)
about time you watched Distant too.
Hey, I’ve got a long list and a “short” amount of time to them—and there’s a lot of recommendations that I’ve gotten from people on this site, and I still haven’t seen many of those films, so you should feel special. ;)
Btw, what did you think of my reading of the film being meant for the viewer to reflect on their lives or a critique of the middle class?
Climates is worth a look but it’s not his best film imo. it has some of his best shots and moments though.
I’m assuming you would recommend seeing Costa’s films over this one, though, right?
“I agree with this. My point is that the character and the story aren’t really that interesting—as in a conventional, more entertaining, drama. The film is closer to Ozu than CCC, imo. Maybe something like Ozu doing Ikiru…well, not quite, but you get what I’m saying.”
Interesting comparison to Ozu. haven’t really thought about it. I do think the Tarkovsky influence is exaggerated though and has a lot to do with the fact that one of his films is playing in the film. Also by that quasi-surreal dream sequence too probably, but it’s just lazy to bring out the Tarkovsky comparisons whenever there are ‘elaborate’ long shots. Unless i’m missing the point?
I think Ceylan is more influenced by Antonioni and Bergman than Tarkovsky.
“Hey, I’ve got a long list and a “short” amount of time to them—and there’s a lot of recommendations that I’ve gotten from people on this site, and I still haven’t seen many of those films, so you should feel special. ;)”
hahaa, i meant to include a smiley face at the end of that sentence Jazz :-) Thanks for making me feel special ;-)
“Btw, what did you think of my reading of the film being meant for the viewer to reflect on their lives or a critique of the middle class?”
I’m not sure. i think the film is primarily about the divide between the urban and rural Turkey, and the way that influences the behaviour of the characters, but i’m sure that class factors into the discussion too, since the rural areas are no doubt poorer on the whole. Uzak appears to be largely driven by the loneliness/alienation of modern urban life.
“I’m assuming you would recommend seeing Costa’s films over this one, though, right?”
definitely
I saw the film as more a about the characters personally than any sweeping representation of class conflicts.
I think Ceylan is more influenced by Antonioni and Bergman than Tarkovsky.
Agree
Three monkeys conveys a very rigid framing and well developed characters. Anatolia has more of a CC feeling but still the characters are well drawn and the acting still retrained so you have two venues flowing at the same time and it works.
“I think Ceylan is more influenced by Antonioni and Bergman than Tarkovsky.”
He himself specifically cites Ozu as his favorite filmmaker and biggest influence.
^^^interesting although i dont think it is immediately apparent from watching hifilms, esp Climates.
i always thought there was a missing piece to the puzzle though. thx. ill keep that in mind next time i watch one.of his.films.
glad Jazz brought it up
His pacing habits are definitely comparable to Ozu, and his focus on unspoken cold conflict. He doesn’t do the unmoving camera thing the way Ozu does.
Yeah, his characters are very resemblant of Ozu. And the manner in which he structures narrative, allowing the time for characters to introduce themselves before adding in any overarching theme, is reminiscent, too.
@Joks
I do think the Tarkovsky influence is exaggerated though and has a lot to do with the fact that one of his films is playing in the film.
I don’t really see Tarkovsky’s influence in the film. I think there’s a conversation where Mahmut and his friend where they bring up Tarkovsky’s name. The friend is reminding him about Mahmut’s idealism and desire to create good art. The friend says, “Remember when you said you’d make films like Tarkovsky.” So Tarkovsky represents True Art or the True Artist.
Later there’s another funny reference, in a somewhat cruel situation. Mahmut is watching Stalker, while Yusuf is watching from behind him. Mahmut is intentionally watching the film knowing that Yusuf won’t like it and will hopefully leave the room (knowing that True Art will bore the crap out of Yusuf)—so that Mahmut can watch porn. Of course, Yusuf comes back in the room at one point, and Mahmut has to quickly change channels. But he changes the channel to something that Yusuf now gets into—so Mahmut is stuck. I liked this kind of subtle humorous moments. (No one mentioned Mahmut stepping on the glue-trap, either. I thought that was effectively funny, even if it was a bit predictable.)
@Jirin
I saw the film as more a about the characters personally than any sweeping representation of class conflicts.
You could be right, but the film is less interesting if this is correct.
_ i think the film is primarily about the divide between the urban and rural Turkey, and the way that influences the behaviour of the characters, but i’m sure that class factors into the discussion too, since the rural areas are no doubt poorer on the whole. Uzak appears to be largely driven by the loneliness/alienation of modern urban life._
But Yusuf is also incredibly lonely as well—and there are many painful scenes with him almost “stalking” various women.
Also, the reason I see the film as critique or a kind of moral tale for viewers to reflect on is that Mahmut is very mean to Yusuf—almost comical in an over-the-top way. Or at least the film has scenes of Yusuf being treated cruelly (and going through painful moments). For example, I mentioned the conversation where Tarkovsky’s name is brought up. If you watch that scene, it’s clear that Yusuf feels uncomfortable or bored. Really, Mahmut and the other guys are pretty insensitive, as they pretty much know that Yusuf won’t be able to relate to the conversation. On the other hand, maybe the scene just shows the alienation between the two characters/regions.
However, there are other scenes where Mahmut is excessively insensitive and cruel, imo. There’s another scene where Yusuf is clearly requesting for help—and Mahmut callously turns on the TV, as if saying, “Here, just watch this and leave me alone.” (Mahmut does eventually give money to Yusuf for helping him out—possibly because he hears how desperately Yusuf’s mom needs money.) But, time and time again, Mahmut is just plain mean and insensitive. Granted, accommodating Yusuf and helping him isn’t easy, but I have to believe a decent person could do a lot better than Mahmut.
“Really, Mahmut and the other guys are pretty insensitive, as they pretty much know that Yusuf won’t be able to relate to the conversation.”
Well, Mahmut had already planned this meeting and Yusuf just showed up. It’s not like Yusuf has anything else to do, or anywhere else to be. Even if he’s bored, what else does he have in a city where he knows no one and has nothing?
Really, you’re shortchanging Mahmut. He has his own life and this guy just shows up, not only that, he stays far past his welcome. He doesn’t even leave when Mahmut has to leave and see his sick mother. It’s easy to say he could do better, but it’s pretty insensitive to impose on someone like that. And Mahmut tells him straight up when he arrives that there is no work here, he’d be better suited going back to his home. Yusuf doesn’t stay because he’s looking for work. He stays because he doesn’t want to be a bumpkin his whole life. So it’s intensely easy to argue that Yusuf’s at least as selfish as his cousin is.
Reducing the characters to no more than a childhood moral fable is to ignore the film in its entirety. It’s looking much more at the depth of characterization one can find in mundanity, than it is finding some overarching critique that ignores that very characterization.
Well, Mahmut had already planned this meeting and Yusuf just showed up. It’s not like Yusuf has anything else to do, or anywhere else to be. Even if he’s bored, what else does he have in a city where he knows no one and has nothing?
Right. I’m not blaming Yusuf. I’m saying that maybe Mahmut and his buddies could have tried to include him in the conversation and not just talk about something that Yusuf couldn’t relate to at all. To be fair, we only see a relatively short moment, so maybe the other people did try to include him in the conversation.
Really, you’re shortchanging Mahmut. He has his own life and this guy just shows up, not only that, he stays far past his welcome.
From what I recall, Mahmut is notified that Yusuf will be coming to stay with him. (Aren’t they relatives?)
It’s easy to say he could do better, but it’s pretty insensitive to impose on someone like that.
First of all, I thought I mentioned that accommodating Yusuf and helping him out isn’t easy. Indeed, I’m sure I’d struggle with this were I in Mahmut’s position. I’d get annoyed and frustrated, but I’d like to think I’d be a little more compassionate and sensitive to Yusuf’s situation.
And Mahmut tells him straight up when he arrives that there is no work here, he’d be better suited going back to his home. Yusuf doesn’t stay because he’s looking for work. He stays because he doesn’t want to be a bumpkin his whole life. So it’s intensely easy to argue that Yusuf’s at least as selfish as his cousin is.
I disagree that it’s “intensely easy to argue that Yusuf is as selfish” as his cousin. Doesn’t Yusuf say that the factory in their town closed down laying off a thousand people? One of them remarks that that’s practically the whole town. Surely his prospects in the city are much better than the ones back home—or at least I got the strong impression that was the case. (If the job prospects were decent, don’t you feel like Yusuf would work to at least help his mother—who can’t get credit with the dentist?) I don’t see him being selfish, so much as desperate and in a bad spot. At the same time, Mahmut seems to be very well off. I’m not saying he has to give money to Yusuf, but he could be a little compassionate and helpful.
It’s looking much more at the depth of characterization one can find in mundanity,…
OK, I’m open to this. Maybe I’m missing something. What do you mean by this?
Humanics: a person’s emotional, intellectual and physical lives are interconnected.
Ceylan has said himself that the Mahmut character is not especially likeable. he claims the end scene deals with the possiblity of him changing(smoking different cigarettes). we have another selfish, self absorbed character in Climates too, played by the director. the book is closed on that asshole in Climates by the end though imo.
Jazzaloha
74/100
Like Another Year, this might be an interesting discussion to discuss, although, like AY, the responses will depend heavily on the viewer’s values and norms of behavior. Here are some thoughts and questions off the top of my head:
>The acting, visual aspects and the overall structure of the film are very good, but it’s so subtle that I think one can easily undervalue them. On one hand, a part of my wants to say the filmmaking isn’t very notable or exceptional; on other hand, that’s my favorite part of the movie.
>Here’s my sense of the film, specifically what it’s going for, and I’d be interested in hearing comments from others. For me, the film essentially wants viewers to examine their own lives with regard to some of the ethical and moral questions raised. The value of the film doesn’t really lie in the drama or the characters, imo. (It’s less interesting as a drama, imo.) I saw Mahmut’s dilemma as a problem problem—what do you do when we face someone in need? Indeed, while watching the film I thought of the question, “Who is my neighbor?” which a man asks after Jesus mentions the importance of loving one’s neighbor and then proceeding to tell the story of the Good Samaritan after the man asks the question.
>The film may also be dramatizing the differences between rural/lower-classes and urban/bourgeoisie—with an emphasis on the immoral neglect of the latter.
>Then again, this reading doesn’t account for some other elements such as, Mahmut’s narcissism and pride which hinder his ability for intimate relationships. We see this with his relationship with women and his ability to reconcile with his ex-wife. That’s certainly a key part of the film as well.
>So I guess I see the film as serving two purposes: 1) to encourage viewers (especially those who are well off) to reexamine the way we treat the most disadvantaged in society; 2) criticizing or condemning the bourgeoisie.
(Note: as I alluded to earlier, one’s values will color one’s reading, and my beliefs have certain done that. People with different beliefs and values may have an entirely different reading of the characters and situations, and I welcome those different interpretations—although I might not agree with them. ;)