The cinematography, by Gökhan Tiryaki, is stellar, as mentioned, and much of the film reveals itself not in the trite screenplay but in the use of camera angles that seem to keep the characters at arm’s length. They therefore become more like specimens under a scientific test than characters humans can empathize with as one of our own. Also, many scenes use characters viewing things from behind walls, bushes, doors, or looking into small areas, as if frames. While this evokes a filmmaker like Yasujiro Ozu, it also evokes thoughts of eavesdropping soap opera characters, so has a net zero effect on the screenplay, as the technical excellence is undone by the dramatic predictability of such shots. This is why the film has no real depth.
This stark contrast with the prior Climates is quite shocking. In a sense, this is telegraphed by the rather odd title of the film. Yes, Three Monkeys does refer to the old saw of a trio of monkeys who see, speak, and hear no evil, as they cover their respective sensory organs that enable them to do so. But, the original Planet Of The Apes took this theme to the limit 40 years earlier. Three Monkeys’ take on it is rather flat.
First, there is little discerning which three of the four main characters the title refers to. Given that Ismail commits murder, Hacer is a psychotic adulteress, Servet is a slimy politician, and Eyüp an unsympathetic stooge, the title seems tacked on, as if an appendix to aid viewers cohere something from this screenplay’s mess. The fault lies squarely on the filmmaker, his wife Ebru Ceylan, and Ercan Kesal (serving double duty as the politician in the film and co-screenwriter). There are some good scenes, such as when Eyüp, upon release, wants to have sex with Hacer, but literally seems to smell her infidelity. He treats her rather brutishly, but considering her transgressions, she gets off lightly. Another great scene is when the mad Hacer throws herself at Servet, only to have him cruelly reject her. That we get no closeups, only a long shot, by the seashore, shows that Ceylan does not ‘waste’ closeups on emotionally obvious scenes, and makes the film seem more like a Frederic Edwin Church painting come alive, than a typical Hollywood shot film. He also makes wise use of ellipses, showing only the aftermaths of things — the son’s death, Hacer’s affair, Servet’s murder, Eyüp’s prison stay, etc.
Article comments
1 - Wassim Diab
Dan, really superb review... as usual.
phrases like: ".... They [characters] become more like specimens under a scientific test than characters humans can empathize with as one of our own..." are irreplaceable.
It's interesting how you mentioned Chekhov, Ceylan mentions Chekhov is "always present in his mind when writing a script" (in his interview on Distant DVD). He also admits that writing is the most agonizing part of movie making for him. Obviously that's obviously also his weakest side as a multi-talented artist. I really don't know what he was thinking when he finalized this script and definitely an audio commentary by him would have helped.
A great point you bring: it's not that he won the best director's prize, it's about why he didn't win the best movie's one.
Overall I think only time could prove if Climates or Three Monkeys were the exception to the rule. I tend to think that Climates was a logical progression, especially watching Clouds of May and Distant.