The film addresses the Turkish/German diaspora, as Cahit and Sibel are personifications of transnationalistic displacement, and thus, the film explores cultural identity when one can’t quite relate to one or the other (Turkey or Germany). Cahit is close to total German assimilation speaking mostly German, and he speaks Turkish whenever necessary albeit terribly. He engages in near hedonistic lifestyles, etc. Sibel is very sexually liberal and independent, in stark opposition to her family’s more traditional values (and therefore their imposing the need to marry Turkish upon Sibel). They both go against their Turkish backgrounds but are simultaneously in conflict (sometimes rejection) by the inhabitants of their new home (consider all the scenes in which they fight or argue with native Germans—the bus, the club).
As the film progresses, both characters undergo a change that brings them closer to the origin of their cultural identity. These changes even manifest themselves physically as Cahit turns from grungy delinquent to dapper gentlemen. Sibel herself transforms from sexually provocative to short-haired androgyny. The genesis of their relationship and the motivation for their actions were for elusive appeasement, particularly Sibel who just needed to find a good Turksih man to marry to get the family off her back.
So the film isn’t necessarily about the actual love relationship between Cahit and Sibel, so much as it is about their mutual search for identity. They needed each other, and the vicissitudes of their relationship to realize who they really are. They don’t quite revert to their Turkish heritage, but realize the need for a coalescence of both their German and Turkish backgrounds to create a new identity, rather than attempt to reject any one of them. Both, in their initial endeavor to reject Turkish heritage (the first half), realize together that they need to embrace (but not overtake) that heritage… and thus the beginning/transition into the Istanbul chapter.
Hopefully this sheds a bit of light on the matter.
@Eugenehl
Hey, thanks for the response!
Sibel herself transforms from sexually provocative to short-haired androgyny.
Wait. Just to be clear: are you saying “short-haired androgyny” is closer to Turkish culture?
The genesis of their relationship and the motivation for their actions were for elusive appeasement, particularly Sibel who just needed to find a good Turksih man to marry to get the family off her back.
…so she could live a more “German” lifestyle. (The fact that German culture is associated with hedonism seems a bit simplistic and biased—if indeed that’s what the film is suggesting.)
They don’t quite revert to their Turkish heritage, but realize the need for a coalescence of both their German and Turkish backgrounds to create a new identity, rather than attempt to reject any one of them.
I’m interested in hearing which parts of the film support this reading. The Istanbul segment suggests an interest and desire to explore their Turkish roots (Sibel seems to have already embraced Turkey/Turkish culture), but I don’t really seem the film suggesting a hamonious fusing of the cultures.
FWIW, the Istanbul segment threw me off partly because I really liked the love story.
1. No, androgyny goes in opposition to her sexual liberalism, the modesty that such may imply goes more towards her family’s cultural values.
2. Again, hedonism isn’t more in tune with German culture but more oppositional to Turkish values.
3. The idea of combing cultures for a new identity is admittedly more a reading but tends to be a dominant theme in diaspora cinema. But I’ll gladly provide more support, along with a couple articles, when I get home and on a computer.
*I’m currently typing everything from my phone so I apologize for the lack of clarity in the above points. Editing is very inconvenient on the phone, but I’m quite fond of the film so I felt the need to respond now haha. I’m currently in a theatre about to watch Killer Joe so I’ll clarify further later tonight!
1. No, androgyny goes in opposition to her sexual liberalism, the modesty that such may imply goes more towards her family’s cultural values.
Androgyny doesn’t seem like the cultural opposite of sexual liberalism, though. I wouldn’t expect androgynous women to fit the ideal of traditional Turkish culture. Modesty, yes. Androgyny, no.
2. Again, hedonism isn’t more in tune with German culture but more oppositional to Turkish values.
But if the film is exploring German-Turkish cultures and identities, then hedonism seems to be a big characteristic of German culture.
3. The idea of combing cultures for a new identity is admittedly more a reading but tends to be a dominant theme in diaspora cinema. But I’ll gladly provide more support, along with a couple articles, when I get home and on a computer.
Cool.
1&2. It goes in opposition to the values of Turkish culture, not “is the opposite of” Turkish culture (or sexual liberalism, etc.). It’s just another means of moving away from Turkish culture. These aren’t binaries we are dealing with. It’s not necessarily a matter of clear cut, is it Turkish or is it German? Does it move in opposition towards another? No. Technically, the point is that it’s not moving on any line of any spectrum that arbitrarily connects Germany with Turkey. Their acting out and “moving away/disconnecting from” Turkish culture does not necessarily mean they are moving toward German culture. They may even be misconstruing what German culture is, which can be manifested by the fact that the native Germans don’t quite accept them either. The entirety of the diaspora and transnationalism aspects make cultural attributions very ambiguous, manifested in their confusion/misdirection/search of identity.
Hedonism is not a part of German culture. I’m not trying to imply that there is an express tie between sexual liberalism and German values, or even modesty with Turkish values. The equivocality of these aspects is exactly the dilemma of Cahit and Sibel themselves.
3. I’m interested in hearing which parts of the film support this reading. The Istanbul segment suggests an interest and desire to explore their Turkish roots (Sibel seems to have already embraced Turkey/Turkish culture), but I don’t really seem the film suggesting a hamonious fusing of the cultures.
I realized I again wasn’t very clear on this matter. I’m not quite saying that they are fusing cultures… that their new identities are a harmonious relation between both German and Turkish cultures. Rather, when a product of transnationalism, seeking an identity directly between one or the other is the wrong way to go about such. Concordantly, to reject one or the other, to act as if their identities can be constructed totally disassociated from the heritage of their origins is misguided. The point is, though they do seem to finally fully embrace their Turkish heritage that they tried so hard to disassociate from. There is no implication that they do this by abandoning the German influences of their lives. I believe that ultimately, they find a comfortable sense of identity in accepting both, rather than exclusively on the rediscovering one.
*In any case, this general reading of the film is what I took (and admittedly what I was guided to take from the film—this was part of a course I took on film history regarding Third Cinema and transnational film), but these specific details/evidences that we are arguing are certainly up to different interpretation. I just personally saw these points as the formal/physical manifestations of the themes.
These aren’t binaries we are dealing with. It’s not necessarily a matter of clear cut, is it Turkish or is it German? Does it move in opposition towards another? No.
OK. Maybe I am thinking about the German and Turkish spheres too rigidly. But the move to Istanbul does seem symbolize to symbolize a move towards Turkish culture (or "world), while moving away from German culture (or world)—for both characters.
Their time in Germany is characterized by a specific lifestyle. When Sibel goes to Istanbul, she experiences a different, more conservative lifestyle, with her cousin. But then she tries to break free and return to a more her lifestyle in Germany (which I thought symbolized the German world/culture). What happens? She gets raped by the guy that gives her drugs, and she’s almost stabbed and beaten to death. (That’s one indication the film rejects German culture. Fast foward into the future and she has a family and comfortable lifestyle—all of which seem to be more conservative and closer to traditional Turkish culture.
When she reunites with Cahit, they try to rekindle what they had in Germany, but it doesn’t seem to work. Well, I got the impression that the spark wasn’t there. Cahit goes on to his birthplace and Sibel stays with her family. This gave me the sense of embracing Turkish culture, while pushing away the German one. The relationship that Cahit and Sibel formed in Germany seems to represent that world and that culture. So the fact that their relationship seems awkward (imo) suggests a mild rejection of German culture. Their relationship represents Germany, so they can’t get together because of that. And then Sibel embraces the Turkish world by staying with her family and Cahit goes on to discover his Turkish roots by going back to his birthplace.
Now perhaps I’m reading in a bit too much of the film, and my interpetation is a bit too specific and without nuance. Still, in general, I think the reading does fit, and I think there’s something to it.
interesting discussion. you seen Edge Of Heaven Jazz? that the movie that Babel should have been but wasnt.
Yes, I have, Joks, and I really liked that movie. (I agree about the Babel comment, too.)
Im looking forward to the director’s final installment in the Turkish-German trilogy.
as for Head On, i’d say my interpretation is closer to yours jazz. im not sure the found a middle ground between their dual identities. maybe the end is transition. it is an ongoing search. we see the girl revert to a more traditional role, which suggests rejection to me but again id have to watch it another time
Is Soul Kitchen the final installment?
…which suggests rejection to me..
Or at least I have a hard time seeing how this suggests reconcilliation between the two cultures.
How’d you feel about my remaks about being disappointed that the film seems to veer away from the love story?
Oh yeah that definitely cleared things up and I certainly see what you’re saying. But I do embrace the idea you raised that the search is ongoing, rather than total rejection or establishing a very specific middle ground. But for now you’ve convinced me! As with Joks, I’m sure I require another viewing.
no Jazz, the final installment has the word Devil in the title. it has been delayed for some unknown reason. he made Soul Kitchen to do something lighter apparently before completing the trilogy.
as for the love story i was disappointed at first too as it was dealt with in such an unusually raw and uncompromising way.
in the end we realise they arent good for other but what that suggests for the allegory is left. wide open.
as for the love story i was disappointed at first too as it was dealt with in such an unusually raw and uncompromising way.
Yeah. I also just liked the pacing/editing of this segment, and because of all these factors I really got into their relationship. The whole Istanbul segment seemed to chuck all of this away. It was disappointing and hard to adjust to.
(Thanks for the feedack on the last installment.)
“Yeah. I also just liked the pacing/editing of this segment,”
Yeah, the editing seems to (tastefully) mimic the frenzy of their brief and turbulent relationship, then it changes later as their individual circumstance alters.
Jazz, what would you rate it overall? I’d give it a 7.5 out of 10, or a low 4/5.
Some more info on the new film. looks like the title has changed:
“French actor Tahar Rahim, star of Jacques Audiard’s Oscar-nominated A Prophet, will play the lead in The Cut, the final entry in the famed Love, Death and the Devil trilogy from German director Fatih Akin that includes Berlinale Golden Bear winner Head-On (2004) and Cannes best screenplay winner The Edge of Heaven (2007). While Head-On dealt with romance and Edge of Heaven with mortality, the conclusion of Akin’s trilogy will focus on the devil — that is, the evil inherent in mankind.”
^^From the Hollywood Reporter.
It’s a little simplistic to claim that Edge Of Heaven is a film about death/mortality though, even if death often motivates characters to act, or not to act. There is a lot going on in that film.
Yeah, the editing seems to (tastefully) mimic the frenzy of their brief and turbulent relationship, then it changes later as their individual circumstance alters.
I was thinking more of the pacing—the way the film fast-forwards through scenes or time in the their relationships; it cut out parts that could have dragged the film, while giving you enough information to get into the story/relationship. (Tender Mercies does something very similar, imo.)
Jazz, what would you rate it overall? I’d give it a 7.5 out of 10, or a low 4/5.
My rating is pretty close to yours. I’d say a 72-74. My personal disappointment in the ultimate direction of the film makes fairly rating the film a bit difficult. I think a lower score would reflect this disappointment, but if I can put that disappointment aside the score probably would go up, if that makes any sense.
One last thing about the film I forgot to mention, and this relates to my disappointment. Sibel seems to save—i.e., resurrect—Cahit’s life, as he’s completely dejected about his wife’s death. He’s heading for death himself, until Sibel comes into his life. She’s the one that saves him, but when the film moves more into German-Turkish identity themes, is she supposed to represent Turkey—i.e., Turkey “saving” Cahit? Or maybe Sibel represents a more harmonious fusion of Turkish culture and German culture?…No, these don’t sound right to me. So the transition away from Sibel’s personal effect on Cahit’s life to cultural identity themes seems a bit rough and disjointed. But I don’t know if my criticism stems from my personal enjoyment of the characters and relationship or if the film really doesn’t do a good job of making a seamless transition.
It’s a little simplistic to claim that Edge Of Heaven is a film about death/mortality though, even if death often motivates characters to act, or not to act. There is a lot going on in that film.
Yeah, I recall there was a lot going on, including cultural identity issues.
Btw, the description of the new film definitely interests me. I look forward to watching it.
Jazzaloha
This is a thread to talk about the Fatih Akin’s Head-On. I have one primary question I’m interested in exploring, but I’m open to discussing the film in general. Before I get to the question, let me briefly comment on my reaction to the film. I really got into the film—especially the two characters and their relationship to each other. It was like a mash-up of Green Card and Leaving Las Vegas—except the male lead was more like Duvall’s character in Tender Mercies. Like Tender Mercies, I thought the director’s decisions on how much to show and where to cut—often fast-forwarding through situations—were excellent.
But the film bogged down for me when Sibel, the female lead, goes to Istanbul. The film almost begins an entirely different movie for me—moving away from a love story into a film about Turkey and Germany—specifically the ambivalence for Turkish people who live a long time in Germany. There’s nothing wrong with this subject matter, but this shift disappointed me because I was really into the love story. Now, some may argue that the film never stopped being about the relationship, but if that’s true, I think the film lost a lot of momentum during the Istanbul segment.
I’ve had some time to push aside my disappointment and try to figure out what the film was trying to do. Here’s my current theory:
Sibil wants to leave her family because they’re too restrictive. The family represents Turkey. So when she breaks away and gains her freedom–her lifestyle represents Germany. Here, we get scenes of the German nightlife as well as German or Western music.
Now, when she goes to Istanbul, she first works for her cousin, but she wants to resume her German lifestyle–drugs, clubbing, etc. As she breaks away from her cousin (rejecting Turkey), she gets into trouble–getting raped and almost killed. But at some point, she embraces Turkey–she marries presumably someone Turkish, has a child and a happy–more conservative–life.
When Cahit returns they try to resume their (German) life, but it doesn’t quite work and Sibel decides to choose her family (Turkey). Cahit wants to return to his birthplace. This move, along with Sibil’s choice, might suggest that Turkey represents a place to find one’s self–a place of salvation for German Turks. They have to return home. But Sibil can’t leave with Cahit to his birthplace because their relationship and life together represent Germany.
I’m not completely sold on this reading, but I thought I’d throw it out there. If this is correct, though, the film wouldn’t be about love or a love story (which would be disappointing because I liked the love story).