Why would the doctor lie in the autopsy report and completely dismiss the fact the victim might have been buried alive ?
I didn't get that part.
i think doctor didnt want the kid miss his father (like he does/possibly).He wanted a better life for that women and kid with murderer.He thought they loved eachother and victim was guilty.
shareThere was no underwear with the dead guy. That means he was at home and most probably on the bed with his wife. So, the wife took also part the murder. The killer and the wife did it together. The killed one was hit with a sharp object and most probably the wife did it herself and called her lover to help her. They buried him alive.
If the doctor had approved that the child would have been left all alone. A dead father and a mother in jail.
Throughout the movie the doctor was the most innocent character. But after the autopsy he was looking out of the window, wachting the mother and the child walking away. There was a blood stain on his cheek. So, nobody left all innocent at the end of the movie...
[deleted]
Ah I didn't spot the victim was wearing no underwear when found.
This throws the conversations between the prosecutor and the doctor into sharper focus. Perhaps the Prosecutor realised what had really happened in this case before the Doctor, who as mentioned is more innocent.
The Prosecutor seem to be telling him in their conversations that sometimes it is better to ignore your professional duty and leave the truth unresolved. This would make sense given the ending.
Wow, I didn't catch it! Thanks for posting your answer, I understood the ending now! What a masterpiece of a movie!
I agree with you that no underwear may point at the wife participation. But how does burying alive relate to the wife? I see no link: it could be done by Kenan alone, or them together - regardless... So, doctor's honesty would not put shadow on the wife.
Another twist: the demented brother once cried that it was him who killed Yasar. So, I thought that Kenan could be covering his brother, who did it unconsciously.
And doctor's honesty would just worsen the sentence. And also just everyone around would be pissed off more thinking about the torture of being buried alive, etc (?)
He obviously realized the wife was involved in all of it, and feared if he mentioned the victim being buried alive, if she was somehow later implicated by forensic evidence or by a witness coming forward, it would mean a longer sentence for her. The lie might have been unnecessary, but the thing is he wasn't as savvy as the prosecutor was. He was prepared not to fulfill his medical duty-something he felt was always necessary from his previous conversations with the prosecutor. The prosecutor basically showed him the world is not as black and white as he see it, and some times it better not to investigate the shades of grey(in this case establish the truth)
share"Another twist: the demented brother once cried that it was him who killed Yasar. So, I thought that Kenan could be covering his brother, who did it unconsciously.
And doctor's honesty would just worsen the sentence. And also just everyone around would be pissed off more thinking about the torture of being buried alive, etc (?)"
Having just watched the film, this was my interpretation too, that the doctor realised Kenan was covering for his simple brother and didn't want to worsen the situation for Kenan, the wife or the boy by revealing that in covering up his brother's crime, Kenan had unknowingly buried the victim alive.
'What does it matter what you say about people?'
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958).
How do you get from a guy wearing no underwear to "That means he was at home and most probably on the bed with his wife." and to (even more ridiculous) "So, the wife took also part the murder."
There is absolutely nothing that happens or is said in the film backs up what you're implying. Let me reiterate a far more believable theory that actually is supported by something that happens in the film:
When they're digging up the body, Ramazan (the other suspect) says "I'm the one who killed Yasar." Kenan looks at him angrily and replies "Shut the *beep* up. Moron."
It's obvious that Ramazan is, at least, a bit slow, and that Kenan is taking the rap for him.
Now, it seemed that nobody (except Kenan and the officer that holding Ramazan) had heard Ramazan. So the doctor couldn't have known, nor could he deduce anything from the absence of underwear because it's an assinine notion and some people just go commando.
The 2nd part of your comment does make some sense though and I tend to agree. He pitied the wife and the son and so decided not to report the dirt in the lungs. But not as to reduce his prison sentence as someone noted earlier, because whether he buried him alive or not he still murdered a man (or so he wants everyone to believe so that Ramazan is spared).
'88
OMG Sandro - I am so glad a voice of reason showed up. I couldn't believe I was down 5 posts into the thread and the wife involvement theory was being bought. As you said - that makes no sense whatsoever. That would mean that they would have to dress the guy without his underwear? Why not just as likely dress him with it?
I'm still not sure why he decided not to report the burying alive issue. I think he had real compassion/sympathy for the main suspect (the skinny one). He saw him cry 2 times and then heard about him crying a third from the police chief. And he told him thanks when he had tried to offer him a cigarette. Perhaps the Doctor thought that a suspect with such a sensitive heart would never have knowingly buried a man alive, and the knowledge that he did so would have tormented him for years..
Also, what do y'all make of all the talk about the surgical tools? I really thought that was going someplace.. like a big reveal of some sort. I took note that the city had been mentioned earlier and then I thought it might have to do with the Prosecuter being somewhere he shouldn't be..
Lastly - The woman who said she was going to die and then she did - that was the Prosecuters wife correct?
Indeed, the doctor just seemed to sense that something wasn't right. Whether he had heard Ramazans confession or not, Kenan's (the skinny suspect) behavior very much seemed to indicate that more was at play.
And yes, the woman from the prosecutor's story was actually his wife.
As for the coroner's constant plea for new surgical tools, that may have been just that, that he needed new tools. I guess it may also be some sort of symbolic reference or allegory but seeing as how I know next to nothing about Turkish politics and history I can't really say anything about that.
'88
barefoot - Yes, the woman who committed suicide was the prosecutor's wife. The story about the "friend" was just a cover-up for himself.
I like your surmising that being "buried alive" may have been unintentional. The murderer(s) may have thought he was already dead when they conked him on the head with a pipe/heavy object, and before they buried him. The doctor wanted to spare everyone involved further pain--the wife/mother/possible co-murderer, the young boy, and the main suspect, who was obviously suffering terribly from what had happened because they used to be friends. However, I'm gonna stand up for the underwear being significant--it has to be because it is mentioned. This guy was naked when he was murdered.
Let's all remember that first scene. It's murder victim Yaser, murder suspect Kenan, and murder suspect Ramazan all eating together as friends in the garage where they obviously worked together. I think Kenan has been fooling around with Yaser's wife (and the child is his) and that's where the troubles originate -- echoing the marital problems of several of the investigating team members. The specific murder details are murky, but it's a case where jealousy and great passions play an essential part. What I found to be the thread that runs from one character's life to the next is that each of them has some essential flaw that gets revealed to the others, linking them all to their vulnerabilities, their hurts, their needs and their lapses/sins, as well as to their dawning self-awareness of all this (or not, as the case may be).
Sorry, how do you know he "was naked when he was murdered. " ?
Because he had no underwear on. The murderer(s) didn't bother putting it on him when they were putting his clothes on.
The clue is deliberate. It's mentioned several times. You're meant to think about it. Even if this conclusion is not true, it leads you to wonder why. Something is not normal, so you have to start thinking about possible scenarios and this seems the most logical to me so far.
I don't agree this is in any way "a clue". Ceylan doesn't make murder mysteries and anything in terms of a hint at a resolution to this murder is pure speculation as the film pays no interest to showing you a murder mystery or any resolution to this death.
What's of interest is in the mind of the doctor and the broken family he is watching outside of the window.
You're entitled to your opinion. However, let me point out three things. First, the investigation of a murder was the overriding framework for this film. Second, because a director (or any artist) didn't make a work of art about something in the past doesn't foreclose on that artist from doing it in the future. Thirdly, the investigation of the murder parallels and compliments the examination of lives and souls of all the characters in the movie. And I am in agreement with your last sentence, which is the culmination of those two trails--the police procedural and one of those personal journeys.
I dunno toto..... I don't think he was naked. I think he was killed with his clothes on and he wasn't wearing underwear. He just had the habit of rolling "commando". Just because they made a point of focusing on it means nothing. They made a huge point of focusing on the surgical instruments and that went nowhere. Also the entire discussion about the yogurt. Or even all the dialogue and attention given to the need for a new morgue? None of that had anything to do with anything.
If he was killed naked, they would have had to dress him. Imagine how hard it would be to dress a dead body. Also, the suspects did not have any blood on them. That would be hard to avoid if you were putting clothes on the body. If you were so meticulous as to insure your naked dead corpse bleeding from a head lac is adorned *everything*, all the way down to the belt, the gold watch, the necklace, socks and shoes, why leave off his underwear? Especially if it might draw suspicion in some way? The time it would take for them to dress this body in clothes would be ample enough for them to realize the man was not dead!
nope... it makes more sense that they believed the younger brother accidently killed Yaser, and they acted in haste, hogtieing him to fit him in the trunk, fully clothed, they drove him out a ways and dumped him in a field and barely dug enough earth out to cover him. The older brother was prepared to take the rap. He was a sensitive man who felt great remorse for the crime and its associated sequelae, and the doctor, recognizing that, chose to keep the knowledge that the man was alive when they buried him a secret to spare everyone more agony since it would not have provided any extra penalty. Just extra misery.
skier - There's too much passion for this death to have been a complete accident:
- The boy is the biological son of the murder suspect as well as the legal son of the murder victim;
- the muted reaction of the mother/wife when identifying her husband (why is she not outraged at the murder suspect and so reticent/closed up emotionally?) as well as to the accused murderer;
- the lack of protest by the murder suspect, his only outburst the "Shut the *beep* up" to his half-wit brother, because he is, indeed, involved in some way.
Even if there was no blood on the two brothers (when was this mentioned, by the way?), they could have gotten rid of their clothes somehow--buried them somewhere, or burned them. Also, the head wound may not have bled that much. But you know one or both of them is involved because they have both confessed (one officially, one at the burial site), so the blood on the clothes question is a little moot.
Yes, we're all agreed that the doctor wanted to end the investigation to spare the boy more pain. And all clues don't always tie into the main question. But your conclusion doesn't account for the obviously suppressed emotions here. That's what this film is all about--suppressed passions.
This is a good discussion. For what it's worth, I take the view that the several unexplained things in the film are really intended to remain just that, and that one can delve too far in the quest for the meaning of everything. You will all know, no doubt, the Tarantino trick of inconsequential banter around highly dramatic events (I doubt he was the first to do this), and Ceylan's film picks up on a few of these - buffalo yoghurt being the first and most obvious reference. Other chat in a surprisingly talky film reveals character, and once or twice vital information (the exchange between Kenan and his weeping brother).
I don't go with you as far, Toto, in the matter of the missing underwear, or even (until I take another look at the film) at the definite involvement of the wife. I think that entire strand is included to make you reflect on possibilities that can never harden into fact.
A Turkish viewer may see more in this - s/he will be a lot closer to the nuances of national character which we (I'm British) might not fully appreciate.
idgreenwood - From a detective point of view, I agree that not enough is known to eliminate red herrings, as far as motive, responsibility and guilt are concerned. But this is a movie about much more than just one death and its investigation. Each person who is involved has got "issues," some of which are pertinent to that person's perspective and responsibilities towards this investigation. I find these seemingly fine points just as interesting and vital to the whole picture we are seeing -- of a society, subsets of that society, and of the individual histories of all the participants.
shareI'd go along with that, sir!
The film reminded me of two others: Of Gods and Men, and The Death of Mr Lazarescu. The first, because of a remorseless analysis of character under stress, the second because of its grim humour and social perspective.
Yes! This film does remind me of The Death of Mr. Lazarescu as well.
shareIf the murder victim had just been wearing no underwear, it could be just written off that he liked to go "commando." But when the body is found, his pants are partially pulled down -- the police commander tells his men to pull them up -- and it's mentioned that the dead man was a rogue who liked to be "ready for action." It makes sense, therefore, that he was killed as he was pulling down his pants, about to rape someone -- possibly the wife, but more likely the half-wit brother, who hit him over the head in self-defense (hence, his graveside "confession"). This eliminates the need for the killers to dress the dead body as well.
shareWhat a great discussion. I'm so glad to have found it here, because the first and last scenes of the film both puzzled me as well.
Another clue to the ending may lie in the Doctor's own failed marriage, to yet another extraordinarily beautiful woman (judging from his photo collection), and his recollection of his own boyhood. Early in the film he is reluctant to reveal his divorce. By the end of the movie, he hasn't explained it to the audience or himself. "Thank goodness you didn't have any children," someone says to him. "Divorce is always harder when there are kids."
The long shot, out the hospital window, of the boy kicking the ball back to the playground and chasing after his mother tells us that the Doctor is prepared to obscure or abandon the truth to protect the boy and his mother. Whether that truth is one or the other of the excellent explanations offered above, or whether the director intends it to remain obscure -- the point of the movie being that, in a world that he pictures initially as naturalistic and later as populated mysteriously by angels, truth is a construct, a convenient fiction to satisfy bureaucrats but nothing for humans to rely on or ever know -- is still unclear to me. But I have enjoyed this ride.
@GeneSiskel-- I like what you say about the director's initial naturalism (rolling apple, stopping for prostate problems), but then the growing mystery and/or fantasy. The film reminded me, for this reason, of the (infinitely more) fantastic Uncle Boonmee . Uncle Boonmee segues from boredom to dying man's fantasy and back again at least a dozen times, but this film has that same crepuscular feel.
shareThe crux of the whole film is how people's perspectives of a grisly situation vary (as the prosecutor put it "The butcher sees the meat, the lamb sees the knife"), how the doctor observes this, and how it affects his own perspective. The ongoing dialog with the prosecutor about his "friend's" wife is the most obvious display of this. How people deal with the dead (the village's need of a morgue, the subpar autopsy tools, etc.) is also tied to this theme.
The doctor is very matter-of-fact, go by the books; therefore he keeps insisting that the family should've given the woman an autopsy. The prosecutor keeps insisting that it wasn't needed, first implying that they "knew" what killed her, and then finally made it more clear what he meant was: It wasn't needed because the situation was already so heartbreaking that he didn't need to know anymore.
The doctor basically takes this perspective into consideration during the autopsy. He realizes the victim was buried alive, but he decides that detail isn't necessary to record. Everyone was already upset enough over what had happened, and the doctor particularly pitied the wife and son (remember how everyone keep telling him how much worse it is for the kids). Immediately after ignoring the dirt in the lungs the victim's blood squirts onto the doctor's face. The final shot of the film shows the blood stain on the doctor's face, symbolic message on how the whole situation had changed the doctor.
"Crank up the Bieber!"
~Me.
It's so ironical, that doctor first insists on autopsy (for the prosecutor's wife) and "finding out the truth" and at the films end he fakes an autopsy result himself :-) And gets blood on his face too. A "funny guy" as prosecutor says
Everyone in this movie is guilty:
- The victim was a bully, running around without underwear "ready for action" and tried to rape the half-wit brother of killer
- The victim's wife was cheating on him, hated him
- The killer cheated on the victim, killed him - for his brother, buried him (unknowingly) alive
- The prosecutor cheated on his wife
- The prosecutor's wife is guilty too - for her brutal pre-anounced suicide
- The "arab" driver had some guilt too, I didn't get the details
- The doctor - guilty of divorce (and some more?)
Beautyful movie, I loved how it was (turkish) men-only and in a group.
Very Andrei Tarkovsky-like too.
I thought basically the same thing about the missing underwear: it allowed the filmmakers to show a sinister side of Yasar so we don't just view him as an innocent victim. But I don't believe Yasar tried to rape one of his murderers, or anyone else for that matter. There's just no evidence of that. No, the important thing was it provided an opening to imply that Yasar was a philanderer, which is sufficient to change how the audience perceives him. This film is all about showing how nothing's black or white, everything is.... complicated. So it's fitting that the same applies to the murder victim.
As for the autopsy, I got the same impression as others in this thread: the doctor intuitively knew that the murderers were not aware they had buried Yasar alive, and he didn't see any point in torturing them with that revelation.
I will give my two cents worth.
I don't think Kenan is the killer, I don't think he was involved. Think to when Commissar Naci beats up Kenan, he is doing so because Kenan cannot remember where he buried the body, or, he just doesn't know. At the time when Naci is beating him up, Naci is heard saying something along the lines "Telling me to get suspect number 2 he thinks he has my job" (bad paraphrasing) Is it out of the question that it was Kenan's brother who did the murder (maybe with the wife) and Kenan took the blame for the sake of the child, it would explain why he couldn't take the group to the murder scene, it would explain the reaction of Kenan when he sees the murder scene (notice his brother wasn't as upset at first?) it would also explain the look he gives to his son (the zoom shot effect) showing him why he is doing what he is doing (taking the blame)
A.) Because his brother wouldn't be able to survive prison
B.) Because if the wife would go to prison the son would be alone
I don't want to be cliche and say Kenan was innocent, he was friends with a "Rat" made all the more worse since he was cheating with his friends wife.
All through the film we're told that women can be ruthless, the way that Naci's wife yells at him on the phone, the Prosecutor's wife, we're reinforced many times that typically only one parent is left to bring up a child. In my opinion Kenan knew this, he also knew that coming out and telling people he was the boy's father would be seen as bad taste given what happened, his reputation would be in tatters.
Now on an internet message board I realise the convenience of my thinking, I also realise saying I am Turkish myself is also a cop out, but I've seen weirder things that this...
Any thoughts?
The wife had nothing to do with the murder. That theory is coming from people who imagine elaborate conspiracies that aren't supported by events in the film. The chain of events is much simpler:
The opening scene shows the victim, Yasar, drinking with Kenan and Kenan's brother, as thunder alerts us that a violent storm (literally and figuratively) is about to begin. From Kenan's statement to Commissar Naci that the murder occurred at the end of a night of drinking, we can infer that this scene takes place just before the murder.
As Kenan told Naci, at some point during the drinking someone revealed (accidentally or intentionally) the secret that Kenan is the actual father of Yasar's son. This presumably is what led to the violence that ended Yasar's life. Since Kenan's brother blurted out (at the burial site) that he killed Yasar, we can assume that Yasar attacked Kenan after finding out that Kenan had slept with Yasar's wife and Kenan's brother hit Yasar on the head to protect Kenan. Kenan and his brother thought they had killed Yasar (remember, they were drunk so they weren't thinking too clearly) and decided to bury him.
Yasar, however, wasn't dead yet. He was merely unconscious. Kenan and his brother buried Yasar alive without realizing it, and Yasar never got the opportunity to dig himself out of his grave (if he regained consciousness) because Kenan and his brother had hogtied Yasar in order to fit him in their trunk.
Kenan's decision to take the blame for his brother may be due in part to Kenan's belief that his brother was not strong enough to survive prison. But it was probably also partly (maybe mostly) due to Kenan's own feelings of guilt, because the fact that he slept with Yasar's wife is what caused the fatal fight with Yasar in the first place.
I think what confused you was when you got the impression that Kenan didn't know where the body was buried. Kenan did know. We're sure of this because he eventually led them directly to the body. He just wasn't willing to do it at first. It was only after the Mayor's beautiful daughter had a profound effect on Kenan, including causing him to have a vision of Yasar, that Kenan decided to co-operate. But first he bargained with Naci, to get Naci to agree to protect the boy that Kenan had fathered with Yasar's wife. He knew the boy would need some help in life now that he had no father.
Incidentally, the reason Kenan didn't tell everybody that he's the boy's father was not because Kenan wanted to protect his own reputation. Murdering his friend had already ruined that anyway. Kenan would've been more concerned about protecting the reputations of the boy and his mother. If the villagers found out that Kenan was the boy's father, they would call the boy a bastard and the mother a whore. Kenan also didn't want the boy to know the truth. It's bad enough that the man who he thought was his father got murdered, it would only make him feel worse to find out that he's actually the son of a murderer... and that his mother is a whore. ;)
^^^ Good interpretation, Zwot.
That was my take on the film too apart from the fact that Kenan actually couldn't remember at first because he was still drunk and hungover. His meeting with the beautiful daughter from the village jogged his memory.
Calling Yasar's wife a "whore" seems a bit rough, but from my extremely limited knowledge of Turkish society then the villagers would have probably branded her as one.
Cheers, Will
If the opposite of Love is indifference, what's the opposite of Hate?
Correct on all points, Zwot.
One additional piece of the puzzle is that during the opening scene where Yasar, Kenan and the brother are drinking in the garage, Yasar is wearing the same clothing he is later found buried in. That ties in seamlessly with the scenario where the drinking leads to the revelation of Kenan's fatherhood, that leads to a fight, that leads to the death, etc.
Zwot, this is one impressive analysis. I missed Kenan's admission that he had fathered the child -- perhaps I was still entranced by the tea-serving angel when that occurred -- but with that addition, your explanations makes complete sense to me.
share@zwot--
I don't know if you will see this, but what do you make of the brother's insistence that he "was asleep?" The brothers makes this claim fairly early in the film--I believe after the first search-site turns up nothing. But he does insist vociferously that he was asleep. Possibly, he meant asleep by the time the body was buried. If that was the case, however, then the complicity of the wife is more a matter of doubt. A guy Yasar's size would be very hard for a man as thin as Kenan to drag.
what do you make of the brother's insistence that he "was asleep?"I understood the claims to be asleep, as well as repeatedly leading Naci to wrong burial sites, as signs that Kenan was still somewhat in denial over what he had done. Kenan and his brother aren't bad guys. They never intended to commit murder. It just happened in the heat of the moment when they were drunk, and afterwards the brothers were horrified at what they'd done. So horrified that they couldn't quite face up to it even after admitting the crime. It wasn't until Kenan had the postmortem vision of Yasar that he finally and fully accepted what he had done. For his brother, it was the return to the burial site that had that effect. Those were, respectively, the moments when each brother broke down and cried over what they'd done. share
@zwot--
I agree with you. I don't, however, think that Ramazan was lying, not in the context of that early scene. The cop (Izzet?) and another man bring Ramazan forward, and he protests that he doesn't know where the body is because he was asleep.
If you have Netflix, Once Upon a Time in Anatolia is now streaming and can be watched instantly. (Of course, I don't know if you're posting from within the United States.) In any event, like another poster here, I find your interpretation of the film most compelling (sans the whore reference). That was why, when I watched the film the second time, I was jarred by this spontaneous, defensive, and--I think--truthful claim that he was asleep.
In any event, this movie gets under your skin. Maybe the all-male cast makes me think just a little bit of The Return (Russian, 2004). Just this whole "scavenger hunt"-style plot, with the characters getting further and further--and further--from home, without any certain resolution.
Thanks for the response.
hilaryjrp, I'm pleased to hear my comments have been useful. I think you're quite right that Ramazan was being truthful when he said he was asleep. Ramazan seemed utterly without guile, so I took his words at face value. But I think he meant that he didn't know where the body was buried because was asleep during the drive to the burial site and was only awoken by Kenan when it came time to lug the body out of the trunk.
My approach to understanding this film, and thus my rejection of the complicit wife theory, is to look for the simplest explanation for everything. I think that fits the theme of the film, which is how the simplest things become complicated, how our orderly lives are roiled by storms. A night of drinking leads to the most basic of all disputes: a fight over a woman. But through a tragic comedy of errors it becomes a needless murder. A man's casual adultery leads to his wife's vengeful suicide, which baffles him for years because he didn't take the simple step of asking for an autopsy. A good man with a loving marriage somehow lets it all fall apart, leaving him to wonder how it all happened. We're all powerless before the storm.
A final thought on Yasar's wife: while she surely was not an accomplice to the murder, I believe she felt guilt nonetheless. She knew intuitively that her affair with Kenan led to the fateful events. (again, the storm) I think this explains why she was so subdued in the aftermath. Also, calling her a whore was merely my effort to speak from the cultural viewpoint of the Anatolian villagers.
BTW, I am indeed a Netflix user posting from the US. I just have an appetite for foreign films. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any of the ones you mention. The last Russian film I saw was Pro urodov i lyudey (Of Freaks and Men) by Aleksey Balabanov. Loved it.
@zwot--
Brilliant: "Look for the simplest explanation for everything."
These days, in a society of film (I hate the term post-modern) wherein lack of clear interpretation gives screenplays cache-- Well, this is why your rendition is getting noticed. The simplest is defensible, whereas elaborations are in the eye of the beholder. (And I did suspect you used the term "whore" ironically.)
If you liked Once Upon a Time in Anatolia as much as you did, you do owe it to yourself to see The Return. Thematically very different--an exceptionally strong allegory that still has viewers debating all over the internet about trivia (as Anatolia does)--it has the same "western" feel to it (or what I call "scavenger hunt"). The further from the comfortable known universe characters travel, the more stark their real (known) selves stand in contrast to the unknown territory.
However, in terms of "tenebrism" (Anatolia's art direction--as opposed to "chiaroscuro"): If you like Anatolia for its dark places, you will *love* the not-vastly-different, and equally lengthy, Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives. In fact, both these films evoke similar love-hate responses.
hilaryjrp, thanks for the recommendations. I've added The Return and Uncle Boonmee to my Netflix queue. (I'm not quite onboard with the concept of streaming, but then I still insist on actual paper & ink books, too.) I'm about to go on a lengthy vacation so I won't get to watch them for a couple months but I'm sure I'll see you on their respective IMDb boards afterwards. I've enjoyed discussing Once Upon a Time in Anatolia with you!
zwot, thk you so much for taking the time to help so many of us out of the dark.
you are very articulate and thorough in your explanations of so many details and you have a very nice way of conversing here.
the only plot point/assumption i question is the doctor and his photos.
thx again!
The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.
Thanks for the kind words, film_ophile. I'm glad my comments have been helpful. I wish I could offer some brilliant insight on the doctor's photos but I was a bit mystified about those myself. I don't remember the scene too well anymore but I do recall feeling that the last photo (of the young boy staring out to sea) was a picture of the doctor himself, as a child.
What struck me about that scene was the way it ended with the doctor staring at himself in a mirror. Before the camera angle changed to show us the mirror, the doctor appeared to "break the fourth wall" and stare at us, the audience. It gave me the feeling that he had never understood how his marriage fell apart, and he was looking to us for some explanation. He had solved the prosecutor's marital mystery by providing a new viewpoint, so maybe the doctor needed someone to do the same thing for him?
I also was intrigued by that straight-into-the-camera shot, though no interpretation came to me for it. But zwot, who/what says he was married?(that's what i was referring to when i alluded to your assumptions about the photos.)
I have to say that all the (intentionally)unanswered details and plot points in this film- leave me asking if they are a serious weakness of the film. If your answer is 'no', then what makes this film a great film for you? And what do you take away with you, that maybe stays with you in a future of many more films?
Btw, have you seen the films of kamal tabrizi, particularly The Willow Tree?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0415607/
I have a sense that you might like it alot.
The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.
It's been months since I've seen this film so my memory is hazy on some things, but I seem to recall some explicit mention of the doctor's failed marriage. Sorry, I can't provide the context, or even be sure if it was the doctor or another character who mentioned it, but I do have a sense that it was discussed openly rather than just implied.
I don't think the murky plot or the puzzling details are a weakness at all. They're a strength! This is a contemplative film, the characters are struggling to understand not just the events at hand but the events that have shaped their lives. Some of the characters achieve resolutions to some of their mysteries, but other mysteries will persist, possibly never to be solved, as is true in life. The viewer is treated no differently, and that makes the characters seem so much more real to us. We can empathize with them, we're just as confused as they are.
In fact, the character development is one of the two things that, for me, make this a great film. They seemed so real in all their complexity and self-contradictions. I especially enjoyed watching the Arab Ali character. He reminded me of a dear friend who passed away last year. The other great thing about this film is its sheer beauty. At the beginning of the film I looked at my watch a few times and thought, "Uh oh, this is gonna be the longest two-and-a-half hours in my life!" But it wasn't long before I was sucking in my breath with amazement. This film is painterly, and exquisitely so. Initially I had just hoped to get through it without nodding off, but when it was over I seriously considered watching it again immediately!
P.S. I've added The Willow Tree to my Netflix queue. Thanks for the recommendation!
Thx v much,zwot. I am going to try to think about your comments and grow a bit.
The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.
zwot, great analysis, I basically agree with your interpretation (the wife would be seen as an adulterous woman, not necessarily a whore). There are two or three important points that have not been discussed in the thread, though, and they may bring up some new ideas:
>> the mukhtar's daughter knows the suspects, as indicated by their surprise when they see her and, most importantly, because she offers Ramazan a can of soda - we see him drinking one in the opening scene (by the way that means Ramazan was probably not drunk). Kenan decides to confess he is the boys' father only after seing her; my interpretation is that she reminded him of his lover. I can´t remember exactly but the mukhtar mentions a daughter that married - might they be sisters?
>> doctor Cemal is the main character, so his personal conflicts should not be left out of the analysis. It is clear from the beginning that he is deeply disturbed by this particular crime; he mentions he did not want to have children but does not explain why. His behavior (including all the looks at windows, mirrors and at the empty steppes) would be explained if he, as a child, suffered because of a similar situation - maybe his father was murdered when he was a kid? If this was the case, he could be trying to spare the boy the disturbing facts around his father death.
>> the dog. In the opening scene, Yasar feeds a black dog. When Kenan points where he buried Yasar's body, he was frightened when he saw a black dog sitting there. Of course it could be a different dog, but from a distance Kenan just saw a black dog, quite a scary thing in that context.
Summing up: what a great movie! Keeps you thinking for hours and there is still a lot to find out!
I really opened a can of worms with my "whore" quip, eh? Please understand that I was not implying that she was actually a prostitute. People often call adulterous women whores, employing hyperbole to effect shame. It's not technically correct, and it's certainly an abhorrent double-standard, but it happens nevertheless. In my comment I called her a whore to emphasize how the villagers would have treated her if they'd discovered her affair with Kenan. Imagine yourself on the streets of her village. Are the other women going to hiss, "Adulterous woman!" as she walks by? No, they're probably gonna call her a whore.
It's been a long time since I saw the film but I don't remember anything that would indicate Kenan and Ramazan knew the mukhtar's daughter. I believe their reaction to her was due simply to her surprising beauty. As for the soda, Ramazan had asked for soda. The daughter may not have witnessed that request but women of that culture, in that situation where the household has guests, typically remain out of eyesight but within earshot.
I don't think the daughter reminded Kenan of Yasar's wife. That interpretation doesn't account for the fact that the daughter had a profound effect on all the visitors, not just Kenan. The other daughter who married was probably Arab Ali's wife. I remember he didn't want to stop in that village because it was his wife's village.
You could be right that Ramazan's preference for soda implied he wasn't drunk during the violence at Yasar's garage. I don't remember what he was drinking or how he acted during that opening scene but it's quite possible that only Kenan and Yasar were drunk. Perhaps his sobriety was what allowed Ramazan to successfully defend Kenan when Yasar attacked?
I have to admit I didn't fully understand Doctor Cemal. I came away with some sense of his backstory and how it influenced his character, and I think I correctly understood why he hid the revelation that Yasar had been buried alive, however there were still a lot of things that puzzled me. But I can't buy the idea that maybe his own father was murdered. There's just nothing in the film to support such a specific interpretation. But you're right, his conflict deserves more consideration. It frustrated me to not understand him better.
Good call on the black dog. I remember wondering about the significance of the dog in the opening scene, so I feel foolish for not making the connection with the dog at the burial site. Even if they were different dogs, the reference to Yasar's dog is clear. Yasar kept his dog tied up in the yard during a storm, which is not terribly surprising because dogs have low status in that part of the world. Yet that dog (or its symbolic representation) proved more faithful than the good friend, who cuckolded and killed Yasar. It fits in beautifully with the recurrent theme that things are more complicated than they seem.
@zwot is right about the doctor being not fully understandable but it was the way NBC intended to portray him while keeping close to the reality. Doctor Cemal is a "stranger" coming from the modern West. He'd not be able to connect with local persons even if he wanted to. Take the moment of dark humor for example: Doctor cites a Russian poem about existence which blows Arab's mind off. Arab's answer is "You better not worry much about this kind of things". He neither understands what the hell these simple words are about nor sees any practical gain with spending time on such stuff. The very reasons huge majority of those 'Middle Anatolian' guys read less than 1 book a year at average.
Among the crew, prosecutor is the only person Cemal can speak with. And we see those guys talk with each other often. NBC probably felt like this would not be enough so decided to throw some extra scenes like doctor's photos/room and but still kept him pretty much in dark.
A very good lay out of events zwot. As always I think the simplest chain of events are the correct ones.
I would also add the fact that Yasar was discovered without underwear and "Ready for Action" leads the audience to believe that Yasar was not a great guy and probably cheated often on his wife. His behavior is what drove her into the arms of another man. This would also explain his wife's lack of remorse at the sight of his body. (Not so whore like with that motivation)
I think this point is important because of the parallels it draws to the prosecutor's story. Where the prosecutor cheated on his wife driving her to suicide, Yasar's wife had a different reaction to his infidelities (driven to the arms of another man.) Additionally, the Prosecutor says something to the effect that his affair meant nothing because he was drunk when it happened. Again this parallels the fact that the murders happened while Kenan and his brother were drinking. It's up for interpretation weather that means the murder of Yasar in the end should mean nothing more then drunken actions, or perhaps the Prosecutor's affair is more meaningful then the actions taken while drunk.
it's about someone covers up for his demented brother's felony.
this is a story just like "Of Mice and Men"
I think doctor was thinking in a more pragmatic way...
As you may remember, there was an issue about whether it was police zone or military zone (where corpse was found) The fact that he was murdered out of the police zone may require a total investigation by military officer, and it would change almost nothing in court. Thus, I think he simply avoided more "unnecessary" trouble.
extra information: in turkey there are borders of police and military zones, cities are police zones but when you go to rural area gendarme is responsible.
The more I read about this movie the more I think it was a lazy effort in the plot department - so many questions unanswered, leaving the viewer to try and construct theories that are far-fetched or contradictory to say the least.
share@-spyretto-- Maybe true, but if I can recall a scene almost scene-by-scene a month after I've seen it...then plot might not have been the point.
shareOMG Sandro - I am so glad a voice of reason showed up. I couldn't believe I was down 5 posts into the thread and the wife involvement theory was being bought. As you said - that makes no sense whatsoever.
Jumping into this thread almost a year later.
Yeah, I don't buy the wife theory. I think that the doctor realized that he hurt the prosecutor by being such a realist he couldn't resist explaining how the beautiful woman actually killed herself, even as the story became more and more clear it was actually the prosecutor's wife, not a friend. He continued to use logic to explain a situation the prosecutor could have probably lived happier not knowing and just believing in the tranquil peace of her fate as he understod it.
Now the doctor sees the man with dirt in his lungs, looks out and sees the wife and child trying to move on and join the other kids. Maybe he reflected on how he made the prosecutor feel and realized maybe it would be best for them to not know this detail... to drag this case on... the husband is dead, nothing will bring him back and essentially he is sparing the wife from more pain. But it is his professional responsibility to acknowledge this information and act on it, so when he looks out the window in the final shot, the blood on his cheek shows that this lie, this blood, is on him now to live with.
It was an act of compassion. He knew Kenan was not guilty and was taking the rap for his brother. He did not want to compound his misery.
On the surface this movie is about a police procedural, but in reality it's an investigation of the human condition and the concepts of regret and guilt.
At the beginning of the film it appears the guilty party is in custody. It is just a matter of going through the bureaucratic motions to get a conviction. As the film proceeds, though, we discover that Kenan is probably sacrificing himself for his mentally disable brother and that it is the authorities who are hiding dark secrets. We learn the truth about the prosecutor's wife's suicide, that the confident man who is given to showing off (Clark Gable scene) has actually been carrying around an immense guilt. We also learn that Cemal as well is carrying around a burden of regret. He is obviously still in love with his ex-wife and although it is never explicitly stated what caused their marriage to fail, it is intimated that it had to do with his not wanting children. (At least this is what I got out of the final scene as he watches the wife and her son walk away.)
This is a grim movie. Human existence is portrayed as lonely men bumbling around a desolate, ancient landscape with only a tiny headlight to trouble the darkness, searching in the wrong direction for the wrong thing. The only uplifting parts of the film are Cremal's compassion and lack of judgement and that magical scene with the beautiful young woman with her lamp revealing the character of each man by their reactions to her innocence.
I really love this movie. The more I think about it the more it means to me. It is the anti-CSI.
I thought that he lied because he didn't want the mother and son to have to endure even more hardship by learning that the man had suffered such a cruel death. I might be very wrong of course, but that's what immediately came to my mind while watching.
share[deleted]
The reason for the murder and even how the murder happened isn't the main issue that the film follows.
Using a search for a dead body as the narrative, the film explores the stress, pain and emotion that the such an ordeal digs up (forgive the pun) for people.
The doctor realizes that there has already been great pain and anguish and therefore conceals the truth in order to spare the wife and child some suffering.
Several posters have mentioned the wife's "lack of remorse" when viewing the body? WTF? She weeps silently (we see a tear roll from her right eye). She's too overcome with emotion to speak, and only nods her head, the first two times she is asked to verify that the body is her husband's.
I can only assume that people who have already concocted the ludicrous idea that he was involved in the murder then proceeded to watch this scene and saw what they wanted to see.
Let's also remember that her affair with Kenan was ten or so years ago. There's zero reason to believe it's still ongoing. That she feels some guilt over that is part of her story, but we can also figure that her husband had been a decent father to the kid who wasn't his biologically -- since the kid throws a rock at Kenan.
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.share
I think the victim walked in on the wife and the brother in bed, he attacks him, the other feeble brother comes into it, seeing his brother in trouble and knocks the other brother in the head. An accident more or less, so they all decide to cover it up.
The doctor senses this, and realizes if everyone involved knew their brother could still be alive if they hadn't tied him up that will only worsen their pain. He's dead, the other one is going to jail. Nothing will change that. So he lets it slide.