All in all, Three Monkeys is a very schizophrenic film, with great (if only the loneliness and sacrifice themes had been accorded more weight) and bad (the predictability) in one, but it is also a film to see for its amazing visuals, and the very fact that it shows a great artist whose art fails the greatness test, for the keys to understanding greatness are often hermetic in purely great art. There is a seamlessness that lets no eyes inside to see the substructure or architecture of greatness. Merely excellent or near great art, however, has holes and cracks that let in a viewer/critic see how the damned edifice was constructed, thus allowing for replication. Here’s hoping that Ceylan himself gazes at the blueprint, and makes the proper corrections in his next film, for as it is, Three Monkeys is not only a regression from the heights of Climates, but it falls below the achievement of Distant as well.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
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.