Reviews

While "Please Vote for Me" has an interesting subject and an interesting way to look at it, being a part of the "Why Democracy?" series, it fails to make a point about democracy, while only seeming to.

First of all, while not wanting to sound political and unlike the common opinion, I don't think what happens in the film has anything to do with China. These children are third-graders and even if they have their own personalities, in a class monitor election with a campaign, they are basically dependent on their parents. Yes, Cheng Cheng wants to have authority and the Luo Lei beats other kids up but after all, they are children for god's sake! The majority of the behavior that they display in this film is typical of a third grader, regardless of how communist or capitalist a country he or she may live in. I must say there are times when the documentary seems artificial, as in one candidate plans to sabotage another's act in the talent show. It is very unlikely that a kid at this age would reveal such a plan to a friend in front of the camera; these are not kids that are too stupid to tell right from wrong. This age is a time when guilt plays an important role in the child's life.

The only sound comment the film makes about democracy is the view of the parents. Rather than seeing this election as an opportunity for their child to learn about democracy, self-confidence, winning and losing, most of them take it as a chance for their kid (and perhaps themselves) to show others that s/he is better than everyone else, with whatever means necessary. For example, Cheng Cheng has a mother who belittles him, pushes him constantly and doesn't seem to appreciate him at all and this may account for his desire to have his classmates under control, because his self-confidence is always undermined at home. The film does a better job of analyzing the behavior of the parents than making a point about democracy or democracy in China, for that matter. The scenes showing the school children chanting and exercising in disturbing unity didn't add much to it, either because the election process did not seem to be related with what was happening outside and if it were, the film made no effort to mention how.

I wouldn't want to discourage anybody from seeing this film, but I think it is a disappointing film which fails to deliver what it seems to be promising.

I believe Ron Howard would make a great filmmaker if he were a little more unconventional. In his best movies, he has no "faults" but there is always something essential missing. In "Frost/Nixon", this something was context. If anyone who knew nothing of Watergate watched the movie, he would think Frost was a hero for making Nixon confess (sort of). He never did give the "trial" the film said the American people wanted. Using the information gathered during 3 days of research based on the "hunch" of a research partner, Nixon can no longer keep up the face. And, the film suggests, it is not because he is cornered, it is because he, too, is a human and has a conscience and he wants to confess anyway. As if Woodward and Bernstein or hundreds of researchers in the Watergate trial hadn't gotten to him even a little bit. The film has no build-up and no complex characters, in the sense that even the characters in fact are complex, they are not developed that way in this film. Frost, a womanizer with a future to secure and Nixon, a fallen president with a reputation to reclaim. That's all we see and really, there is not much more to get. For the real drama about Watergate, everyone, "All the President's Men" is a must see.

After watching "Night on Earth", it is not hard to see why Jim Jarmusch is regarded among the greatest of independent filmmakers. Brilliance pours from every scene of this movie. As you probably know, the film takes place in five taxi cabs in five different cities on the same night. In a film with a such format, it is tempting to comment on "which segment is superior" but this would be missing the point entirely because "Night on Earth" is greater than the sum of its five parts, although it is true that the five segments can stand easily on their own. The L.A. segment portrays two very different women, for whom expectations from life differ completely and yet they are both content with who they are and they can somehow connect at some level. The N.Y. segment is hilarious, especially the part played by Rosie Perez. The trio in the taxi can only come together in New York, I guess. The Paris segment works so perfectly on so many different levels. It mainly raises questions about prejudices, not just about where people come from but simply about regarding others who are not like us. At the end, it leaves you asking "who is more blind?". The infamous segment in Rome is comedy at its purest and Roberto Benigni in top form. I guess it will be the most bizarre and entertaining confession I will have ever heard of. The Helsinki segment seems to end the film on a sad note but in my opinion, it actually says more: Although we sympathize with the two "talking" passengers since they sympathize with the taxi driver, it is again these two who are inconsiderate to their friend. And as for the driver, although he is deeply sad and wounded, this sadness is a little self-centered and he has no pity to those whom he can actually help. As a whole, in addition to being a very good comedy to make you laugh, this film makes you contemplate about life, people, space and time. It opens in L.A. just about when it is getting dark and ends in Helsinki at dawn. While you actually know that these stories are taking place at the same time, it feels as if you have witnessed a night go by on Earth and have made a unique journey.

"Standard Operating Procedure" is without a doubt one of the most terrifying films to come out in the last few years. It is a bold documentary which may be at times too gut-wrenching for some people to watch, not that this should ever prevent anybody from seeing it. It was a good decision to look at the events at Abu Gharib mainly through the eyes of the convicted military officers; and of course the photographs speak for themselves. Apart from the depth of the material, the filmmakers have done an outstanding job with the enactments, the visuals and the brilliant music by Danny Elfman. Although the documentary does point out and emphasize that high-ranking officers were never imprisoned for the depicted crimes, in my opinion, the film does fail to ask many essential questions that I feel should have been included in this documentary. Such as: Why do we insist seeing these events as more of an embarrassment on the part of the U.S. than an insult on the Iraqi prisoners? Since the soldiers frequently mention that they are "just following orders", who exactly are these orders coming from? Why will the U.S. Military not allow Charles Graner to be interviewed? What kind of a system is this that can categorize a completely naked "detainee" handcuffed backwards to his bed or another prisoner made to stand for a long time in a difficult position by the fear of being electrocuted as "standard operating procedure"? I am aware that the answers to these questions would stretch the format the director has chosen for this documentary, but I still believe that Errol Morris should have looked more openly into these territories in order to have made an even bolder film; and bold, courageous and very well made this film certainly is.

Director Cagan Irmak had moved his audience to tears with his beautiful, semi-political, semi-melodramatic "Babam ve Oglum" only a few years ago. Now, here he is with a much more mature and deeper depiction of a tortured soul of our times. At a certain point, it is reminiscent of Allen's "Annie Hall" and there is a gentle, sly nod to Scorsese's "Taxi Driver", and this film deserves comparison to both of these films; no need to be modest. The main character is a handsome, young restaurant owner, a chef in Istanbul and his casual relationships with a large variety of women say something about his actual loneliness. On the other hand, she is a lively, lovely young woman with a pretty little costume shop and when they meet, it's not love at first sight, but a love that grows and is woven with their efforts, especially hers. But this is not an ordinary, straightforward womanizer-turned-romantic-by-true-love-kind-of story. It is the sad story of a man who has alienated himself from all emotional human contact because of a life in "the big city". It is all the more sad because he is aware of it, he wants to open up and get rid of it, but he just can't. And she was just about to make it easier for him... Anyway, this is definitely a movie worthy of seeing. It is not just a local story, I'm sure people all around the world will identify with the characters in this film. I hope little films like these are seen by large and different audiences and get the praise they deserve.

Although it can be argued that its local touches can be appreciated more fully by Turkish audiences, "3 Monkeys" is a film that can definitely appeal to all film-lovers all over the world. It is a human drama, centered around the family of a fall-guy for a small-time politician. It is also a story of betrayal, longings and revenge. No shot is "left there" just for the effect. Even while you are watching someone walk under a train crossing, you find yourself thinking about what she might be feeling, thinking, not because you force yourself to, but because the film successfully makes you. Visuals are great, as always is with Ceylan, but this time they are superior, and the film, with both its screenplay and visuals has a black-and-white feeling, although it is not a black-and-white picture. At the end, you find yourself wondering who the "three wise monkeys" really are. Is it the family of 3, whose members have different agendas and do not want to see or hear or tell, or is it us, for knowing, but not wanting to know about all this human drama and social corruption? I hope "3 Monkeys" can gain international distribution besides film festivals and be given a chance to be appreciated by everyone.