Excellent photography and grading are not enough to support attrocious characters, awkward choice of interactions, falsely intellectual dialogue and the 3 bloody hours it lasts. Go see Something Useful (ISE YARAR BIR SEY) instead which does these things better and shorter :)
Cinema. The writing has lost the pomposity of the previous film, and adapted an oral verbosity that the images just follow and sustain. In the end, a dream, about a well and a death, recovers the possibility of the autonomous language of images and their connotation.
More developed and refined compared to his previous films, NBC's last film is just as captivating and mesmerising to watch. Almost all characters have a duality in them or come with a 'partner' that they hold contradicting thoughts with, making hypocrisy a strong theme. Amazing film to watch, but it lacks something I can't quite put my finger on - maybe more provocation, a wider plot arc or even a longer runtime.
"Talky", sure—but another word for that might be "literary", and WPT sees Ceylan going further into a world of words with only periodic flourishes of visual mysticism. Our hero is a young man disgusted by the resignation around him, which makes the film like distilling your 20s into 3 hours. It all resorts to a few acts of arthouse literalism that feel cheap—but chiefly because they're alongside such earned wisdom.
Tree doesn’t offer a clearly delineated through path; it’s a craggy journey, carefree in maintaining sympathy and engagement. It has truly wild, radical, cinematography, indebted to Godard though not always justifiable. It is wise about the boldness of youth, the burden of family. Flights of fancy suit Ceylan, the imam walk didn’t feel so integrated. Fuck motion smoothing.
Rhythmically it has a correct sense of movement and editing, something which renders the length imperceptible really, despite the ponderous dialogic set pieces. Some of these work (as in the debate on religion), others are extremely pretentious and conventionally filmed (as in the bookshop discussion) and, generally, this is fast-forward Angelopoulos with strengths in the long shots but schematic binaries elsewhere.
The naivety and arrogance of youth, is my main takeaway from this. Very interesting this one. It took me three different sittings to get through it, and several days. The pros are its stunning cinematography, thoughtful pace and fascinating dialogue. Its cons are it is overlong, the protagonist is unlikeable and it all seems a bit pointless. The father and son relationship is the best part of the film.