Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (2011)

Once upon a time, out in the sticks outside of Istanbul, a man with a wife and child waiting for him at home, was murdered. The killer has confessed and all that is left to do in order to clear up the legal case is the find the body over the course of a night. This is, essentially, the premise for Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (2011), Turkey’s official submission to the Best Foreign Language Film award category for the 2012 Academy Awards.

Although the premise sounds straight forward, the execution is far less than simple. The audience are thrown into the fray without any explanation of what the fray actually is. What are they looking for? Is it a body? Who’s the victim? How were the criminals found? If the killers are unsure of where the body is, how can we be sure they did it? The story consistently adds more questions as others are answered. This is because the film is not a traditional story. It doesn’t attempt to fit to the normal formulas of ‘Beginning, middle and end’ or ‘Equilibrium, disequilibrium, re equilibrium’. There is room for debate as to whether it does, or doesn’t conform to these recognised formulas, but it is clear that the film is part of a bigger picture. There is definitely an exposition, even if it isn’t spelled out and there are enough questions left unanswered at the end to make it clear that the story will continue after the credits. It is more of an event that is being filmed than a narrative, which not only sets it apart from other murder investigation films, but also makes it seem more real - like life. It is also worth noting that a reason that the ambiguity of exposition and details feels real is because it is. The story is based on real events that one of the co-writers went through while training to be a doctor. He was unable to remember all the facts from the long night, but he remembered the atmosphere well, and this was translated to the screen very clearly.

Anatolia (or just outside as most of the film takes place a fair distance from the municipal limits) is a small rural area. The characters aren’t like the investigators we may be used to from other police investigation dramas where people have been desensitised to the idea of death. They all seem like people who lead simpler lives. It is unclear if there is a single leading character, or if they are all a collectively important ensemble. Three vehicles full of people on both side of the law trawl through the hillside with the same objective. However, as the prosecutor notes: the butcher’s only concern is the meat, the lamb’s only concern is the knife. Each character, although having the same collective objective of looking for the dead body has their own personal objectives and concerns and their own assigned roles within the group. The prosecutor notes this of the Army Sergeant accompanying the search party without realising that each member fits into this thought, especially himself. He is so wrapped up in his own life and pretensions, that he gives little regard for those around him, or doing his job properly. The pretensions of the prosecutor are communicated beautifully through conversations dotted throughout the film with the doctor. The script consistently provides deep and interesting conversations, but it is also the master of the opposite: banal and sometimes idiotic discussions. There are constantly conversations that don’t drive the plot anywhere, but help round out the characters and make the audience realise, that for most of the characters, they are just killing time. While the deeper aspects of the script are well written, well performed and definitely thought provoking, it is these lesser important, mundane, every day thoughts, quips and jokes that bring the film to life.

As night turns to day, the cold grey dawn sheds light on more than just the beautiful Turkish countryside that has been shrouded by the pitch-black night; it sheds light on the narrative and questions surrounding it. It becomes apparent that the protagonist is the doctor, and it is no longer about the ensemble. The daylight also allows the plot to drive forward once more after exhaustion and quick tempers had necessitated a break.

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia is not an easy film to summarise. It’s not quite an investigation, as the audience aren’t supplied with enough facts. It’s not quite a murder-mystery because we know who did it from the start. It’s not quite an insight into rural Turkish life, as it’s only a single, isolated event. It’s not quite a road-movie, because despite most of the film being on the road, they’re not going anywhere.

Despite the struggle to label the film, it is a great success. The slow pace allows the thoughts provoked to simmer and remain with the audience allowing them to debate it for longer, this is important as the film, in fact, seems to get better the more the audience think about it. Nuri Bilge Ceylan, the film’s director stated in an interview with timeout:

“The films that bored me the most in the past became my favourite movies later on, so I don’t care about boring the audience. Sometimes, I really want to bore them because out of boredom might come a miracle, maybe days later, maybe years, when they see the film again.”

- Nuri Bilge Ceylan

It hasn’t taken years, but mere days for the lengthy, drawn out Turkish film, which admittedly, didn’t bore, to increase in reputation in my mind. The realism, it is also worth noting, doesn’t rule out the chance for dreams or epiphanies which appear a few times and give the audience more to dwell on outside of the search. The film combines an interesting story with a great script and beautiful landscape. It combines true events with a style of realism and is a masterpiece well worth the 158 minutes it takes to watch this film.

Written by Edward L. Corrigan on 19/03/2012

Rampart (2011)

On March the 3^rd 1991, police in Los Angeles excessively beat Rodney King with batons for resisting arrest after a car chase. The beating was caught on camera and caused a media storm and later (after the police officers in question were acquitted) caused the LA riots of 1992. This incident has been referenced numerous times in cinema, most notably in National Lampoon’s Loaded Weapon 1(1993) and American History X (1998). But it is not only this specific incident, or even cinema alone that has highlighted police brutality or inherent racism within the American Police Department (and the LAPD in particular). N.W.A released their album ‘Straight Outta Compton’ in 1988 which featured the protest song ‘Fuck Tha Police’. While it was never released as a single it garnered great notoriety and is evidence of the feelings felt towards the Los Angeles Police Department. Over 20 years have passed since this prolific time of bad blood between the LAPD and common opinion, but is it still an issue? The Oscar winning Crash (2004) questioned racism throughout LA, not just its law enforcers and now Rampart (2011) questions the corruption and how it’s been tackled. The word ‘question’ is used loosely here, as no real answers are provided and no real evidence is brought forward; these are, after all fictional films. But films often reflect the culture they are released to, or at least the opinion of certain group of society they are aimed at.

Set in 1999, James Ellroy’s story watches as the LAPD, along with the rest of the world, attempts to make changes as the millennium approaches. The actual narrative seems almost inconsequential in comparison to the lead character and the situation he finds himself in. The film is a character study and the character in question is Woody Harrelson’s ‘Date-Rape’ Dave Brown. The nickname was earned because he “may or may not have killed a man” who was well known serial rapist. This incident implies that Brown is man of moral stature who can’t abide those that mistreat others and will stop them by any means necessary, even by stepping outside of the law he upholds. The reality is quite the opposite. He’s the past that the LAPD is trying to sweep under the carpet; he’s corrupt, violent, chauvinistic and racist. It would appear that his biggest downfall, however, is his refusal to adapt when the world around him is changing. It seems that if he had been willing to change, his past discretions would have remained in the past; if he had used some subtlety he would have been able to continue his career and life without adding disciplinary action from the police, politicians or media. This didn’t happen, and after having his squad car hit in a road collision, Brown mercilessly beat the other driver and when caught on camera he tried to argue that it was self-defense after being attacked with a deadly weapon. This collision is the catalyst of the film. It brings Brown’s consistent wrong-doings out from behind closed doors and into the media spot-light which is something that the LAPD can’t afford. Brown’s corruption jumps to the foreground and forces issues with his family to the surface and slowly draws out his paranoia, alcohol and drug abuse and his insecurities such as an apparent eating disorder.

Brown’s paranoia blames everybody around him for his situation for himself but doesn’t allow any of the blame to fall on him. His paranoia not only implies, but constantly shouts, that he has been set-up, that the camera was planted and that the top brass in Rampart were trying to use him as a scapegoat. There is no evidence supplied in the film to back up Brown’s accusation, however it raises the possibility: did the police really make the necessary changes? Or did they simply remove the most notorious offenders, pulling out the weeds but leaving in the roots? The film doesn’t answer the question; it doesn’t even give any credence to it and as a character study it doesn’t allow for other information to enter the debate, it simply floats the idea through the ramblings of a drunk and paranoid man as his misdeeds slowly catch up to him.

The film boasts an impressive cast with the likes of Steve Buscemi, Ice Cube (formerly of the previously mentioned NWA) and Sigourney Weaver appearing. Each supporting actor supplies an impressive performance, but they all, are simply support. It is Harrelson, appeariong in every scene, who carries the film with his arrogant, and yet pained and lonely portrayal of the sort of cop that was almost globally hated throughout the 1980s and 1990s. On top of the great cast, the film has a screenplay written by James Ellroy - whose LA crime/noir novels such as L.A Confidential and The Black Dahlia (the novels as opposed to the films) are enough of a reason to draw audiences to any of his work - and was directed by Oren Moverman, who gained critical respect with his directorial debut The Messenger (2009).

The style of the film suits the story, the camera moving about as regularly as Brown does, spinning and often swaying, almost like one of the rogue cameras catching the police brutality to forward on to the media later, but there is one sore thumb sticking out. Midway through the film Brown enters a club, and the scene takes on an almost style over substance feel. The scene clearly uses symbolism to add a bit of depth to Brown (solidifying the addictions he holds and the eating disorder he masks with constant chain smoking) but the style of this scene, along with many other aspects of it draw the audience out before it comes to an end and returns to normalcy regaining the attention of the audience. The scene is not necessarily pointless, but was simply approached in the wrong way.

With that sore thumb taken into consideration, the film is still a triumph that states, despite the failed screen adaptations of Ellroy’s work, there is still a way for his writing to connect with film audiences and is worth catching while it is still in cinemas.


Written by Edward L. Corrigan on 08/03/2012