Change Your Image
npyx
Reviews
Lawless (2012)
Worst of John Hillcoat so far...
I've seen (almost) anything John Hillcoat directed so far, from "Ghosts... of The Civil Dead" to "The Road". My opinion is, comparing his other work, this film was his worst one.
Let me explain my view starting with the potential of the film: Cast was good obviously - except the guy who played Jack. Nick Cave, being Nick Cave, is a big plus. A perfect setting for the director whom had told impressive stories in his earlier work.
But it doesn't seem this potential was used - or it could not be used. One reason could be the story itself - or maybe the plot. But most probably there was a problem with the story-telling. One of the weakest characters I've ever witnessed - Jack, an annoying gangster wanna-be - is on the front line. I'm saying "weak" not because Jack is weak per se, he's weak as a film character. Along the whole movie we witness how much "distance" he can go. As he goes, nothing is improved in the sense of storyline. A pointless way to go.
The film also doesn't take notice the contradiction of human behavior or societies. Pure black and white. Dictating and irritating common sense trash. Eye for an eye, evil is evil, etc. Remember "The Proposition" and how that film questioned one's view towards phenomenon like society, crime, common law, punishment or humanity? Well, you'll find none of that here.
What you will find here is a drama... kind of. A very simplistic view of a bootlegger story setting in a little town. Don't expect a coherent and impressive cinematic experience like you did in many Hillcoat films.
I hope he keeps collaborating with the same crew and directs many many more good films that you can easily point out his Hillcoat signature on them. I hate to see such a big potential is used ineffectively.
Kibar Feyzo (1978)
One of the most comprehensive satirical comedies from Turkish cinema
"Kibar Feyzo" is one of the most prominent films in Turkish film history. It's a satirical comedy narrating the story of a peasant whose village is in the southeastern region of Turkey where feudalism is still partly intact in rural areas. From this perspective, I feel the need to give a little background information for whom has limited or no information about what Turkey's condition were in 70's.
Feudalism, or "agha" (landowner) system has a long history on the land of Turkey. After Turkey became a republic, there had been attempts to constitute a "land reform", but always met obstructions. Still, to this day, there are many many villages which feudalism still applies, especially in eastern and southeastern region of Turkey. There are still "aghas", tribe leaders and so on. Some landlords are (and have been) even parliament members, they have a considerable weight in politics. So I imagine it was not very easy to broadcast a film like this. But this film is not only about the suffering of peasants, but also about "peasants" of city, laboring class, the bottom of the pyramid. When Feyzo works in the city, he finds out how a huge advantage being syndicated is. He gradually learns that when there is repression, being organized is essential for the struggle.
"Letting daughter marry someone if money is paid" practice is still being applied in some regions. I believe director wanted to provoke a reaction against this. Women rights issue is still a problem which Turkey is facing. Also the film directs criticism against materialism.
After the military coup d'etat in 1960, a new constitution had been put into action. This constitution was a more libertarian, humane one compared to its predecessor (and also successor). But there was a cold war going on and Turkey's scene was involving a lot of rightist-leftist conflict. This conflicts started to be called as "anarchy" - and the term "anarchist" was used especially for leftist organizations and individuals. A lot of blood was shed, so many died. In 1970 and later on, new laws were passed and some liberties was restricted, especially the ones regarding unions, rallying, protesting and freedom of speech. In the film, the writings on the walls signifies a reaction. In the scene when "Maho agha" is shouting at the peasants angrily as he complains for ingratitude, he says: "Here you're, 141 or 142 heads, and I'm feeding you all." 141 and 142 are numbers of two notorious, well-known laws aimed at leftist ideas which was restricting activities and propaganda regarding classes and class based ideas (removed from effect a about decade later). There are many other references regarding conflicts and problems of Turkey.
There were (and still are) also many structural difficulties (financial, cultural, you name it) which would be hard to write down at full length. In an environment like this, I believe anyone would consider this movie a brave, daring and tempting attempt. Turkish cinema had produced satirical comedies before and produced more later on, but this film is representing its own merits and it stands on the edge of a new era. It's worth mentioning that in 1980 there was another military coup d'etat and another constitution was instructed, which was in harmony with neoliberalism and conservativism.
I may look like I'm exaggerating this socio-political aspect of the film, but this aspects are combined with strong elements of satire and comedy, and this is what makes this film special. It also has very funny moments which have been cult jokes in everyday life. They may seem a little funnier to Turkish audience, because understanding the sense humour of another culture may be a little difficult. But this film has really affected Turkish culture, alongside being a part of that.
The characters in film are not very deep, since the focus is not directly on them. But some of the characters are deliberately selected to represent figures in real life. These figures include religious ones, politicians, bureaucrats, business men and so on. Every actor/actress on the cast list did very well. Dubbing sometimes becomes irritating, though. Why editing was poor in those days, I don't know. Probably because of financial and technical difficulties.
In summary, this film is a satirical comedy mainly about the exploitation, repression and suffering of lower class. The film focuses on problems peculiar to Turkey, in a sense. So it may require the viewer to be a somewhat familiar with the problems of Turkey in order to appreciate (which I tried to shortly explain some of them above). So, even if you're not from Turkey, I recommend this film if you wouldn't mind exploring another culture and its set of problems.
Av Mevsimi (2010)
Too many downsides but may worth watching.
This movie is an attempt to create a modern Turkish detective movie, which also aims to demonstrate a moody atmosphere. There's almost no Turkish detective movie to trace back that would help us to compare, so we can assume this movie tries to accommodate an approach. It's not an easy task, since our view is hugely affected by Hollywood movies. The movie indicates Turkish lifestyle, traditions, relationships and death.
The very thing you might appreciate about this film is probably acting - but not the acting by minor characters. Cem Yilmaz, in particular, exhibits the most notable performance in this movie. Other major characters' performances vary from "almost good" to "so so". Minor characters' performances are generally "below so so" with some exceptions.
While the plot is not the strongest aspect of this movie, the revealing of the story makes things a little more mediocre. You may even sense the atmosphere is crumbling beyond a point. Nevertheless, there are no unnatural absurdities, no unnecessary exaggerations and no forced heroes. Some of the nuances and references are amusing or interesting and they're enhancing the experience.
The genre is somewhat new for Turkish cinema. What do I mean? First of all, expectations should not be high. And second, introducing a movie in an unexplored genre makes things interesting, makes it a different experience. Yes, there are so many better movies from Turkish cinema, from Yavuz Turgul or from this genre. But just don't keep your expectancies too high, you may actually enjoy this movie.
Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)
Complete Insincerity and Hypocrisy
I won't be chattering about how we're bound to the system of capitalism to be free, to have super powers etc. But this documentary intentionally twists all the rationale and reduces itself to a finger-pointing-populist-crybaby. It simply doesn't know what it's talking about.
Capitalism, as we conceive today, has been around for about 600 years. According to this documentary the entity of capitalism has been run by big conglomerates, corrupted politicians and profit loving establishments - not by us. But after the mortgage crisis, we had enough and we realized there's something wrong. Congratulations.
And this documentary makes its point by asking priests and bishops about their opinions on economy, since they're the all-knowing masters of economic principles. This is actually ironic, since "protestant ethics" is the major element behind mercantilism, a harsher type of capitalism.
It also makes use of people whose relatives are deceased, who lost their jobs, houses etc. for pseudo-emotional purposes.
"How can those people lose their jobs, houses? Even if they still have cars? What happened to America? Capitalism, you're a bad, bad boy!" says the documentary. Did capitalism start to hurt middle-class American dream instead of distracting them by pouring a few million bombs in Iraq? Apparently.
I won't bother forming an anti-argument. Looks like Mr. Moore doesn't know anything at all about how capitalism rose in the context we conceive today. I'd suggest reading about protestant ethics and Max Weber. And industrial revolution, great depression, world wars, Bretton Woods institutions, dollar as a reserve currency, energy crisis, financial bubbles... That means he should read a lot.
I strongly suggest not to waste your time on this. If you want to understand economic systems, do what you should do and read some books. History of capitalism is interesting in particular, because it reveals how people prospered while others suffered, how low human could be and how the world became what it is today. But this documentary will only give you pseudo information and will try to agitate you with "they are to blame - not you" act. Avoid.
Twin Peaks (1990)
An Extraordinary Production, Despite An Inferior Continuation After The Second Half Of The Second Season
Twin Peaks is known by its mysterious nature and weird set of characters. It's one of the productions that changed our ways of thinking about TV series. And just like anything we see on the screen, it has its brilliant moments and not-so-brilliant ones.
In the first season and the first half of the second season, we make a mystified journey in the town of Twin Peaks through a chain of strange events and their consequences. Being introduced with exceptional characters, we experience the towns atmosphere, inhabitants' life and their twisted relationships. They're brought us almost in a cinematic way. Not every puzzle is solved in a certain way, some instances remain open to our perception. But everything is smooth.
Honestly I was a little disappointed after seeing the ninth and tenth episode of the second season. The sense of mystery partially gives place to artificiality and dullness. As some said earlier, it's like (although certainly not) the concept reached it's limits and there comes improvisation for the sake of entertainment. So expect to be disturbed by pointless conversations, unnecessarily prolonged scenes (especially when romance is involved), exaggeration, and lack of connectivity. Feeling of compulsion may last till the last few episodes of season two. And after that awaits the worse. As mentioned before, last episode leaves everything hanging. It ends prematurely and leaves a full sense of incompleteness, much like "Carnivale". But even considering these, probably you'll still find Twin Peaks enjoyable.
Twin Peaks is a cult TV series that affected both TV and cinema productions. Personally I like to watch one or two episodes time to time just to feel the atmosphere of early '90s. I should add that the music in Twin Peaks is enchanting. Angelo Badalamenti really did a great job creating the unique score. But it's more than that. You'll find mystery, symbolism, references and creativity in Twin Peaks. In many ways Twin Peaks is an exceptional production and way ahead of it's time.