Director's cruelty on animals, casts a shadow on his otherwise great film.
13 Reviews
Great film
Nafnlaus4 April 2021
A parable of selfishness
gbill-748771 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
A parable of selfishness set amidst farmers in rural Turkey, 'Dry Summer' is the story of a man who decides to dam up a small stream, denying his downstream neighbors the water they depend on for their crops. You see, the spring it comes from is on his property, and he wants to insure his own fields get the water they need. Meanwhile, his younger brother objects, but doesn't press the point. He's in love with a beautiful young woman, and is talked into forcing the issue of marriage over her mother's desire to wait by guess who, yes, his aggressive older brother. This guy is a real piece of work, and he's also not above spying on his brother making love to his new wife through a hole in the wall once she comes to live with them. He covets her, and the combination of his greed, lust, manipulation of those around him, and lack of any form of moral compass may remind you of someone (ok I'll just say it, Donald Trump). Yes, that's where we are right now, comparing the President of the United States of America to one of Turkish cinema's biggest fictional villains, and thinking, hmm, yep, it is kind of the same person isn't it?
The film really takes you to this place with its rugged, beautiful scenery, and the casting is excellent. Erol Tas plays the bad guy well, and Hulya Kocyigit is positively radiant as his sister-in-law. I would love to see more of both of them. The story gets a little monotonous, alternating between scenes of him greedily holding back the water on his neighbors to their consternation, and those of him ogling his sister-in-law, but it held my interest. By the way, one of his moves in the attempt to seduce her is to suckle directly from the teat of the cow he's been milking, and fondle its leg suggestively. He's a classy, classy guy, this guy is.
The film may have been even better had it been a little more nuanced, e.g. a scenario where him not building the dam threatens him with serious poverty, which would have forced us to confront in a more difficult way the boundary between individual and community rights. I don't think it was meant as a symbol for real-life tension over water diversion either, such as those that were building between Israel and the Arab countries around it over the Jordan River in this time period, but it is interesting to think of that way, since conflict over fresh water resources will undoubtedly escalate in the future on a hotter planet with more people.
Be forewarned, there are a couple of brutal scenes in the film involving animals. (Stop reading now if you don't want the mental image.) The one that stands out is probably the worst thing I've ever seen done for a film, and that's the actual shooting of a dog. And it's not at a distance or obfuscated in any way; it's at point blank range, fills the screen, and it's absolutely horrifying to hear the dog howling in the throes of death. His body is then thrown around a couple of times, just in case we weren't shocked and outraged enough. What do you do with a film rating after seeing that? It was completely unnecessary to tell the story, and incredibly cruel. Director Metin Erksan should be ashamed of himself, and it mars what is otherwise a good movie.
The film really takes you to this place with its rugged, beautiful scenery, and the casting is excellent. Erol Tas plays the bad guy well, and Hulya Kocyigit is positively radiant as his sister-in-law. I would love to see more of both of them. The story gets a little monotonous, alternating between scenes of him greedily holding back the water on his neighbors to their consternation, and those of him ogling his sister-in-law, but it held my interest. By the way, one of his moves in the attempt to seduce her is to suckle directly from the teat of the cow he's been milking, and fondle its leg suggestively. He's a classy, classy guy, this guy is.
The film may have been even better had it been a little more nuanced, e.g. a scenario where him not building the dam threatens him with serious poverty, which would have forced us to confront in a more difficult way the boundary between individual and community rights. I don't think it was meant as a symbol for real-life tension over water diversion either, such as those that were building between Israel and the Arab countries around it over the Jordan River in this time period, but it is interesting to think of that way, since conflict over fresh water resources will undoubtedly escalate in the future on a hotter planet with more people.
Be forewarned, there are a couple of brutal scenes in the film involving animals. (Stop reading now if you don't want the mental image.) The one that stands out is probably the worst thing I've ever seen done for a film, and that's the actual shooting of a dog. And it's not at a distance or obfuscated in any way; it's at point blank range, fills the screen, and it's absolutely horrifying to hear the dog howling in the throes of death. His body is then thrown around a couple of times, just in case we weren't shocked and outraged enough. What do you do with a film rating after seeing that? It was completely unnecessary to tell the story, and incredibly cruel. Director Metin Erksan should be ashamed of himself, and it mars what is otherwise a good movie.
Masterpiece
lepetitemre20 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Winner of the prestigious Golden Bear at the 1964 Berlin International Film Festival, Metin Erksan's wallop of a melodrama follows the machinations of an independently selfish tobacco farmer who builds a dam to prevent water from flowing downhill to his neighbors' crops. Alongside this tale of soul-devouring competition is one of overheated desire, as a love triangle develops between the farmer, his more decent brother, and the beautiful villager the latter takes as his bride. A benchmark of Turkish cinema, this is a visceral, informatively shot and vibrantly acted depiction of the horrors of greed.
Winner of the prestigious Golden Bear at the 1964 Berlin International Film Festival, Metin Erksan's wallop of a melodrama follows the machinations of an independently selfish tobacco farmer who builds a dam to prevent water from flowing downhill to his neighbors' crops. Alongside this tale of soul-devouring competition is one of overheated desire, as a love triangle develops between the farmer, his more decent brother, and the beautiful villager the latter takes as his bride. A benchmark of Turkish cinema, this is a visceral, informatively shot and vibrantly acted depiction of the horrors of greed.
Harpiscord in a Turkish village film ???? :)))
fgfbach20 July 2012
before i watched, I had not expected such a gripping and fascinating film, i think its because we all (Turks) are used to watching funny village films with full of comedy where we burst into laugh even one kills another but this film shows us the dark side of village people with their great will to stay alive while trying to get the water (or any other) they need for their districts. usually village people (still, but especially in 1960s) are supposed to be uneducated and carrying gun with them in case there's an attack from other village people, in that case we should not be criticizing why the man does not agree to give water to all his neighbours, its very normal if we consider not everyone has the same brain cells, that is as normal as why there was world wars before. We cannot ask why for this film and for these times because simply there are no rules and the most brave with a gun in hand may grab all and dominate all. I have 2 things in mind, the musics are very interesting, because if there is no action you hear traditional Turkish tunes, with "saz" (a stringed Turkish instrument) but when there is action, you hear something like Bach with harpiscord, that is realllyyy interesting for me to hear this instrument in a Turkish Village film :)) the second thing is that was it necessary to kill those animals ? i think no, the director (metin erksan) could have made it possible easily if he wanted to. Anyway, its a must watch film, not only because it won the first golden bear from Turkey, but, also because probably it deserved. you might like the film very much or you might hate i don't know, but you will not get bored that's a guarantee... (try the new edited version in u-tube, its really great and as if it was shot 10 years ago)
Kudos to the Turkish director -- shows Turkish Republic's shame
Sadik1-Dost31 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was born and raised in Turkey (Turkiye). I did watch the movie on Turkish TV more than 20 years ago. Sadly, it was only once. What I remember may not be enough for me to do justice to the movie. I may add that my knowledge of films that deal with similar themes is rather limited. I am in no position, for instance, to decide whether the theme was borrowed from a previous work, or whether it was dealt with here for the first time. What I do remember is that one of the most important moral issues that the movie dealt with was the question of whether or not water can be fairly dammed by a person (or people) upstream, if it is clear that such a dam would cause serious drought downstream. The villain (Erol Tas, a gentle person in real life, and arguably the best/most hated villain in Turkish cinema thus far) acts as if he has every right to cause such a drought. He even seems to enjoy himself taking a bath in the pool/artificial lake that he creates, while his neighbors go without water for their land and their daily use. Erol Tas's villainy is not limited only to this. However, it is interesting that this gem of a Turkish film also points out to the criminality of the Turkish Republic's construction of a series of dams that are sure to deprive Syria and Iraq of life-giving water. As far as I know, this film was the first Turkish film to receive a prestigious award and critical acclaim in Europe. It deserves to be remembered, re-watched, and made available on DVD.
My number one turkish movie
skoybasioglu14 February 2020
An opposing and epical scenario in cold war period. Depriving the whole village of his property, a man changes the destiny of a society where he lives. In the end, he grabs there is no benefit of his own fortune as long as this fortune is shared..
A turkish cult movie.
adem-2015912 May 2021
Criterion
yusufpiskin20 July 2021
It was a nice experience to watch this unique 1963 film in the Criterion collection at Martin Scorsese's attempt. Cinema is Immortal. Thanks to Martin Scorsese, Giovanni Armani and Versace, I hope we watch more movies.
Strong Drama of Rural Passions
rogeromaro26 September 2015
This is a tense, strong drama, although perhaps not for the squeamish. The photography is artistically done, on the other hand the looping is typical 60s; that is, artificial. Evocative use is made of the santur, a Turkish string instrument like a cimbalom. A completely different kind of music accompanies fights and scenes of violence. Then we switch to avant garde atonal riffs; here the instruments are Western. The camera is almost always close to the action, helping to create a sense of claustrophobia. The dialog is sparse; the director preferring to rely on meaningful glances. There are no snappy one-liners. Most of the film is easily understood without even looking at the subtitles. There are some particularly memorable, even disturbing images near the end. The title might be better translated as "Thirsty Summer," suggesting as it does the rapacity driving the main character.
You will lose your mind fighting for Earth's bloodline
Polaris_DiB19 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Make no mistake about it--in the foreseeable future, this story will be reenacted on the global scale. The War over Water is coming, probably in the next couple of generations.
That said, the analogy may not exactly match in terms of how it proceed, partly because I fail to see why the younger brother actually listened to his elder after he (the elder) proved to be completely insane and power hungry and was obviously a lech from frame one. But perhaps the Turkish family operates so strictly in general, I have to admit I know little about their culture.
In the meantime, be prepared for a descent into insanity as things go quickly, quickly awry--and the camera angles with it. There's some beautiful imagery and set-ups here that send the themes into way more effectiveness than the actual character motivations do.
--PolarisDiB
That said, the analogy may not exactly match in terms of how it proceed, partly because I fail to see why the younger brother actually listened to his elder after he (the elder) proved to be completely insane and power hungry and was obviously a lech from frame one. But perhaps the Turkish family operates so strictly in general, I have to admit I know little about their culture.
In the meantime, be prepared for a descent into insanity as things go quickly, quickly awry--and the camera angles with it. There's some beautiful imagery and set-ups here that send the themes into way more effectiveness than the actual character motivations do.
--PolarisDiB
Annoying
zetes16 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
A Turkish classic, but, I must say, I kind of hated it. It's obnoxiously loud, with every line being shouted or screamed, and the characters are either hopelessly dumb or mustache-twirlingly evil (literally: the villain twirls his mustache). The story concerns two brothers, Osman and Hasan, who own a primo piece of land with a natural spring flowing from it. The spring, which flows down to other farms, has always been a communal water source, but Osman, the elder brother, figures that he can become the most powerful landowner around if he dams it up and keeps it all for himself. Hasan objects, but, being the younger sibling (he seems to be in maybe his late 20s at the youngest, with his brother a good decade older maybe), he goes along with it. Early in the film, Hasan becomes a newlywed, marrying Bahar. Osman is a widower, and he takes an unhealthy interest in Bahar. After a tragic encounter with some rebellious neighbors, Osman convinces Hasan to take the jail sentence for him. Up to this point I can see that, yeah, in this culture the younger brother might defer to the elder in most cases, but it strikes me as unbelievable that Hasan, who, in any real world scenario, had to have noticed his brother making eyes at his wife, would agree to leave her alone with him for years at a time. The whole movie just bugged me on a couple of levels. The cinematography was really nice.
Animal cruelty was disgusting
heidijones7425 August 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I am sickened by the violence and murder of animals. It was unnecessary. Truly disgusting. I was willing to keep watching this mid, at best, movie but once the dog was shot and clearly in extreme pain, I had to stop. The creepy man and his horrific treatment of women also turns my stomach. He is a grade A jerk. The fact that this is what some people call a cult classic is gross. His aggressive behavior is not ok and should never have been tolerated. What made everyone involved with this pathetic project think that it was good or acceptable. I don't care what country this was filmed. That kind of behavior and thinking is just plain wrong. The dog deserved better.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
