Tweet
MY PARENTS COUNTRY | NADIA AHMAD INTERVIEWS FATIH AKIN IN CAIRO ON HIS LATEST FILM, "THE CUT"
The Sultan's Seal (English)
November 11, 2014
by Youssef Rakha
Cairo International Film Festival Interview, Bulletin #2
Fatih Akin; source: tz.de
Fatih Akin was born in Hamburg in 1973 to Turkish immigrant parents.
He made his name with "Head-On", which won the Golden Bear and the
FIPRESCI award at the 2004 Berlinale. His film "The Edge of Heaven"
received the Best Screenplay award and was nominated for the Palme
d'Or at the 2007 Cannes Festival as well as hogging four of the 2007
Ankara International Film Festival's awards: Editing, Screenplay,
Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress. Akin's comedy "Soul Kitchen"
(2009) received the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival.
More recently, he made a feature documentary, "Polluting Paradise"
(2012), about environmental damage in the Turkish countryside. He
describes "The Cut" as the last in a trilogy about love, death and
the devil, following "Head-On" and "The Edge of Heaven".
Nadia Ahmad spoke to Fatih Akin at the Marriott Hotel in Zamalek,
Cairo, where he is the guest of the 36th (2014) Cairo International
Festival screening"The Cut".
.
NA: Why the Armenian genocide and why now?
FA: My parents are Turkish, I'm connected to the Turkish heritage. I
love my motherland for so many reasons, although I was born and live
in Germany. Issues of justice or lack thereof in Turkey really bother
me. Certain western values like freedom of speech that are essential
are quite limited in Turkey.
Talking about the Armenian genocide especially is not easy. It's
getting easier and better over the years but I don't like that some
people still get aggressive and attack you because you don't share
the same opinion.
That's why I thought about presenting a film that provokes the public
into discussing the genocide, one that makes the audience seek more
information about the topic. Maybe the discussion the film stirs can
create a certain emancipation through the word "genocide". If you say
the word again and again and again, maybe it loses its dangerous and
threatening implication; like inflation, the more you print banknotes,
the less value they hold.
I belong to the Turkish minority in Germany and when one belongs to
a minority, you empathize with other minorities all over the world,
and the Armenians are a minority in Turkey.
I also believe that whatever the issues we have with the treatment
of minorities in Turkey now, whether Christians or Kurds, it all goes
back to the Armenian genocide.
.
NA: So you'd say that this time the film is for the Turkish people?
FA: Yes. Honestly I was very surprised by the response I got from
Armenians. I didn't expect them to embrace it and give such a positive
feedback. In particular, Armenians in diaspora who are so traumatized,
they get scared and offended whenever they hear anything related to
Turkey. But they were pleasantly surprised that someone of Turkish
descent would make such a film.
On the other hand, the majority of western media also surprised me
with their negative response. They didn't get it at all, so things
turned out the complete opposite of my expectations.
.
NA: But if the film is meant for Turkish people, why was the majority
of dialogue in English?
FA: I didn't make the film solely for Turkish people. I'm a world
filmmaker, the film is meant for people all over the world. I shot
the Armenian segments in English because I don't speak Armenian and I
wanted to control the film. It's impossible to shoot a historical scene
with 250 extras in the desert while directing dialogue in a language
you don't speak. I would've had to let others do the directing because
I can't judge the material being shot.
I'm not the first to follow this method. Bertolucci, Polanski and
others did it before me. But for some reason, people in the west,
especially within the festival circuit, were very offended by it. They
claim that I'm reaching for Hollywood which is not true. I do know
that if I wanted to to have a shot at the Academy Awards, my chances
are much better with a film shot in a foreign language. But I don't
make films for the Academy Awards, films come from my instinct which
can be right or wrong, only time will tell.
.
NA: Is it safe to say that you're satisfied with the decision you made?
FA: I dubbed the film in Armenian, and I always knew I would do that
for certain markets. In festivals, it came out the way I shot it
because I think it's interesting to be able to discuss art, techniques
and the insinuation of language in cinema. In the end, the same soul
made the film regardless of the language. I know people expect certain
cinematic styles from me, but I can't cater to everyone's taste,
I can only try to fulfill my own expectations. I can definitely say
that I'm not ashamed of how it turned out.
.
NA: There is this whole debate about which language you used in the
film, but at the same time, your main character Nazaret was mute. What
did you hope to accomplish by that?
FA: It was a great challenge. I think films where dialogue is minimal
are great, it leaves more room for visuals. I researched a lot of
silent 1920s films, especially Chaplin's. Those films have such a
powerful impact, they suck you in, and they're much stronger than a
lot of films made today. I don't mean that everything was better in
the past of course, but it definitely wasn't a disadvantage to shoot
silent scenes. The film consequently relied on visual communication
which is how cinema should be. Dialogue is a main aspect of cinema
but I always trust pictures more.
On the other hand, there was definite symbolism in Nazaret's silence.
The film relates to obstructing freedom of speech, and the violent cut
was a means to convey that using cinematography. Armenians understood
the silence as their own, but they were not the only ones rendered
mute, we were also forbidden from talking about the genocide for
too long.
.
NA: How did you work with Tahar Rahim on omitting dialogue which most
actors rely on to show their craft?
FA: Tahar is a very skilful actor, and he has a reputation in
France for having great instinct. But he also proved to possess
great technique. There are many ways to express yourself without
dialogue, and I think he did an incredible job considering that the
film is long and he appears in every scene. I know that when I see
the public's reaction, cinema viewers who are strongly moved by his
performance. I had no intention of making a film that moved people
to tears but people wept when they watched the film, and that's all
him and the result of the connection he created with the audience.
.
FA: So the genocide was not the murder and the cut throat only,
but what followed as well?
NA: Indeed. I tried to add as many details as possible because I have
a generalist approach to storytelling which might be too much for
some people. I went through so much material, including diaries about
Armenians in Havana failing to enter the US because of immigration
laws and Armenians in North Dakota working on railroads, and I had
to include that.
.
FA: So the journey is not imaginary?
NA: Everything mentioned in the film happened to someone, not to one
single person but the collective comes from different anecdotes told
by different people in memories and oral history I only collected
these fascinating elements of the puzzle and made them into a film.
"The Cut" is definitely a very literature-based film, it could've
been made into a novel and I like that. We also shouldn't forget that
after a while, watching the film, people who deny the genocide start
forgetting that Nazaret is an Armenian and realize that he's just a
father looking for his daughters. They say they like him very much
but they're not supposed to because he's an Armenian, and that's the
trojan horse.
.
NA: Despite the fact that the film tackles the Armenian genocide,
it felt like it had more to do with Nazaret's journey as a human being.
Was that intentional?
FA: I don't know how a film about genocide has to be done. A film
about the Armenian genocide would ideally be a 12-hour documentary,
to really understand and analyze every aspect of it.
Films like "Schindler's List" or "The Pianist" are films about the
Holocaust, but the difference between "The Cut" and those films is
that the Nazis who are the antagonist there cease to exist. When
the antagonists are not ruling the show anymore, the film is over,
there is an obvious distinction between the good guys and the bad guys.
Those were great films of course but they follow a different context,
and the same rules don't apply to all genocides so we can't and we
shouldn't compare them. When I did my research about the Armenian
genocide, I came across fascinating material and stories of survivors
which were all about journeys. That's why Armenians don't see a gap
between the two parts of the film, because to them, diaspora is part
of the genocide.
.
NA: How do you explain the negative reaction of western media?
FA: A lot of critics were disappointed by the change in style and
the historical facts in the film, but I was also very disappointed
in a lot of critics, and I don't mean that in a bitter way. I'm just
surprised that they didn't understand and feel the struggle, but I get
that critics from the eastern side of the world have a fuller grasp
of it because in the end, everyone in this region has gone through
their own conflicts and that helps with understanding others'. However,
the film is not just for critics. I appreciate their role, but public
reception is also very important, and it's something I learn every day.
.
NA: Do you believe it's your responsibility to make films on issues
related to this region?
FA: I think we have so many stories to tell in this region of the
world, and it's not about writing something that benefits from our
misery and then presenting it to the west. I dream of taking money
from the west to make our stories for our audiences.
I was driving through the city for the first time this morning and I
kept thinking that someone needs to make a thriller that takes part
on the streets of Cairo, make a film on the sex lives of the upper
class in Dubai, it's all very interesting and there's so much to tell.
That's part of the reason I'm interested in festivals like this one,
because they expose this region's cinema.
.
NA: Do you feel that young filmmakers in the region recently managed
to break this barrier?
FA: I do, because they have stories to tell. They definitely have the
talent, and more and more technical facilities because of technological
development. However, this technical evolution is a curse at the
same time because on the one hand, quality standards are higher and
it doesn't depend on who has more money anymore. At the same time,
more films are being made but there aren't enough cinemas or festivals
to screen them.
Sooner or later though, there's going to be a strong competition with
the western talents. These are difficult times, and you really have
to breakthrough. Sometimes it takes more than talent and technical
facility, you can call it luck I suppose. Again, that's why it's very
important to support festivals from this part of the world to break
the western embargo on filmmaking.
.
NA: Technically speaking, how did you go about envisioning the visuals
of the film?
FA: Once I had the final screenplay, I decided on the rules that
I needed to apply. I wanted to make something personal that deals
with the genocide in the form of a Western. What I really like about
Westerns is the combination of space and subject, and how space can
create a sense of loneliness.
I don't like working in studios because they are too limiting, there
are always pleasant surprises when you shoot in the wild. We had rain
pouring over us, real sandstorms, and stray cats walking through
the frame that were not in the screenplay, but the cinematographer
decided to continue shooting. That's why I like filming outside,
because you get to catch nature and light.
.
NA: Some people criticized you for limiting the scope and not showing
the actual size of the genocide, how do you feel about that?
FA: It's not always about quantity, it's also about quality. I was
not shooting a documentary, and it's not easy choreographing those
crowds in Jordanian deserts, and it costs a lot as well. The film
was always meant to be styled as a 1960s classic Western.
.
NA: Like "The Good, the Bad and The Ugly"?
FA: Yes, some critics say we shouldn't be making this kind of film
anymore, but everything is being circulated in arts. "Mad Men" brought
back 1960s fashion. Five or ten years ago, the same people would've
said no one would ever be wearing those clothes again, but everything
goes in circles, nothing moves in the same direction.
.
NA: To put things in a larger context, you talked before about how
"The Cut" is a part of the Love, Death and the Devil trilogy.
FA: I think the three films are my journey discovering and reflecting
on Turkey. "Head-On" was very limited in terms of space, it took
part inside hotel rooms in certain neighborhoods of Istanbul, but
through my work in "Head-On", I met interesting people, refugees,
political prisoners and thinkers, and through them I was exposed to
interesting stories that lead to the making of "Edge of Heaven". Space
was not limited in "Edge of Heaven", the film eventually ends in a
small village at the very eastern end of Turkey.
Through "Edge of Heaven", I met more people like Orhan Pamuk and found
out more about minorities, and realized that a lot of the problems
in modern-day Turkey originate in the period between 1915 and 1923,
which "The Cut" is set in; hence, the idea of the trilogy is to try
to really personally understand my parents' country.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
The Sultan's Seal (English)
November 11, 2014
by Youssef Rakha
Cairo International Film Festival Interview, Bulletin #2
Fatih Akin; source: tz.de
Fatih Akin was born in Hamburg in 1973 to Turkish immigrant parents.
He made his name with "Head-On", which won the Golden Bear and the
FIPRESCI award at the 2004 Berlinale. His film "The Edge of Heaven"
received the Best Screenplay award and was nominated for the Palme
d'Or at the 2007 Cannes Festival as well as hogging four of the 2007
Ankara International Film Festival's awards: Editing, Screenplay,
Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress. Akin's comedy "Soul Kitchen"
(2009) received the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival.
More recently, he made a feature documentary, "Polluting Paradise"
(2012), about environmental damage in the Turkish countryside. He
describes "The Cut" as the last in a trilogy about love, death and
the devil, following "Head-On" and "The Edge of Heaven".
Nadia Ahmad spoke to Fatih Akin at the Marriott Hotel in Zamalek,
Cairo, where he is the guest of the 36th (2014) Cairo International
Festival screening"The Cut".
.
NA: Why the Armenian genocide and why now?
FA: My parents are Turkish, I'm connected to the Turkish heritage. I
love my motherland for so many reasons, although I was born and live
in Germany. Issues of justice or lack thereof in Turkey really bother
me. Certain western values like freedom of speech that are essential
are quite limited in Turkey.
Talking about the Armenian genocide especially is not easy. It's
getting easier and better over the years but I don't like that some
people still get aggressive and attack you because you don't share
the same opinion.
That's why I thought about presenting a film that provokes the public
into discussing the genocide, one that makes the audience seek more
information about the topic. Maybe the discussion the film stirs can
create a certain emancipation through the word "genocide". If you say
the word again and again and again, maybe it loses its dangerous and
threatening implication; like inflation, the more you print banknotes,
the less value they hold.
I belong to the Turkish minority in Germany and when one belongs to
a minority, you empathize with other minorities all over the world,
and the Armenians are a minority in Turkey.
I also believe that whatever the issues we have with the treatment
of minorities in Turkey now, whether Christians or Kurds, it all goes
back to the Armenian genocide.
.
NA: So you'd say that this time the film is for the Turkish people?
FA: Yes. Honestly I was very surprised by the response I got from
Armenians. I didn't expect them to embrace it and give such a positive
feedback. In particular, Armenians in diaspora who are so traumatized,
they get scared and offended whenever they hear anything related to
Turkey. But they were pleasantly surprised that someone of Turkish
descent would make such a film.
On the other hand, the majority of western media also surprised me
with their negative response. They didn't get it at all, so things
turned out the complete opposite of my expectations.
.
NA: But if the film is meant for Turkish people, why was the majority
of dialogue in English?
FA: I didn't make the film solely for Turkish people. I'm a world
filmmaker, the film is meant for people all over the world. I shot
the Armenian segments in English because I don't speak Armenian and I
wanted to control the film. It's impossible to shoot a historical scene
with 250 extras in the desert while directing dialogue in a language
you don't speak. I would've had to let others do the directing because
I can't judge the material being shot.
I'm not the first to follow this method. Bertolucci, Polanski and
others did it before me. But for some reason, people in the west,
especially within the festival circuit, were very offended by it. They
claim that I'm reaching for Hollywood which is not true. I do know
that if I wanted to to have a shot at the Academy Awards, my chances
are much better with a film shot in a foreign language. But I don't
make films for the Academy Awards, films come from my instinct which
can be right or wrong, only time will tell.
.
NA: Is it safe to say that you're satisfied with the decision you made?
FA: I dubbed the film in Armenian, and I always knew I would do that
for certain markets. In festivals, it came out the way I shot it
because I think it's interesting to be able to discuss art, techniques
and the insinuation of language in cinema. In the end, the same soul
made the film regardless of the language. I know people expect certain
cinematic styles from me, but I can't cater to everyone's taste,
I can only try to fulfill my own expectations. I can definitely say
that I'm not ashamed of how it turned out.
.
NA: There is this whole debate about which language you used in the
film, but at the same time, your main character Nazaret was mute. What
did you hope to accomplish by that?
FA: It was a great challenge. I think films where dialogue is minimal
are great, it leaves more room for visuals. I researched a lot of
silent 1920s films, especially Chaplin's. Those films have such a
powerful impact, they suck you in, and they're much stronger than a
lot of films made today. I don't mean that everything was better in
the past of course, but it definitely wasn't a disadvantage to shoot
silent scenes. The film consequently relied on visual communication
which is how cinema should be. Dialogue is a main aspect of cinema
but I always trust pictures more.
On the other hand, there was definite symbolism in Nazaret's silence.
The film relates to obstructing freedom of speech, and the violent cut
was a means to convey that using cinematography. Armenians understood
the silence as their own, but they were not the only ones rendered
mute, we were also forbidden from talking about the genocide for
too long.
.
NA: How did you work with Tahar Rahim on omitting dialogue which most
actors rely on to show their craft?
FA: Tahar is a very skilful actor, and he has a reputation in
France for having great instinct. But he also proved to possess
great technique. There are many ways to express yourself without
dialogue, and I think he did an incredible job considering that the
film is long and he appears in every scene. I know that when I see
the public's reaction, cinema viewers who are strongly moved by his
performance. I had no intention of making a film that moved people
to tears but people wept when they watched the film, and that's all
him and the result of the connection he created with the audience.
.
FA: So the genocide was not the murder and the cut throat only,
but what followed as well?
NA: Indeed. I tried to add as many details as possible because I have
a generalist approach to storytelling which might be too much for
some people. I went through so much material, including diaries about
Armenians in Havana failing to enter the US because of immigration
laws and Armenians in North Dakota working on railroads, and I had
to include that.
.
FA: So the journey is not imaginary?
NA: Everything mentioned in the film happened to someone, not to one
single person but the collective comes from different anecdotes told
by different people in memories and oral history I only collected
these fascinating elements of the puzzle and made them into a film.
"The Cut" is definitely a very literature-based film, it could've
been made into a novel and I like that. We also shouldn't forget that
after a while, watching the film, people who deny the genocide start
forgetting that Nazaret is an Armenian and realize that he's just a
father looking for his daughters. They say they like him very much
but they're not supposed to because he's an Armenian, and that's the
trojan horse.
.
NA: Despite the fact that the film tackles the Armenian genocide,
it felt like it had more to do with Nazaret's journey as a human being.
Was that intentional?
FA: I don't know how a film about genocide has to be done. A film
about the Armenian genocide would ideally be a 12-hour documentary,
to really understand and analyze every aspect of it.
Films like "Schindler's List" or "The Pianist" are films about the
Holocaust, but the difference between "The Cut" and those films is
that the Nazis who are the antagonist there cease to exist. When
the antagonists are not ruling the show anymore, the film is over,
there is an obvious distinction between the good guys and the bad guys.
Those were great films of course but they follow a different context,
and the same rules don't apply to all genocides so we can't and we
shouldn't compare them. When I did my research about the Armenian
genocide, I came across fascinating material and stories of survivors
which were all about journeys. That's why Armenians don't see a gap
between the two parts of the film, because to them, diaspora is part
of the genocide.
.
NA: How do you explain the negative reaction of western media?
FA: A lot of critics were disappointed by the change in style and
the historical facts in the film, but I was also very disappointed
in a lot of critics, and I don't mean that in a bitter way. I'm just
surprised that they didn't understand and feel the struggle, but I get
that critics from the eastern side of the world have a fuller grasp
of it because in the end, everyone in this region has gone through
their own conflicts and that helps with understanding others'. However,
the film is not just for critics. I appreciate their role, but public
reception is also very important, and it's something I learn every day.
.
NA: Do you believe it's your responsibility to make films on issues
related to this region?
FA: I think we have so many stories to tell in this region of the
world, and it's not about writing something that benefits from our
misery and then presenting it to the west. I dream of taking money
from the west to make our stories for our audiences.
I was driving through the city for the first time this morning and I
kept thinking that someone needs to make a thriller that takes part
on the streets of Cairo, make a film on the sex lives of the upper
class in Dubai, it's all very interesting and there's so much to tell.
That's part of the reason I'm interested in festivals like this one,
because they expose this region's cinema.
.
NA: Do you feel that young filmmakers in the region recently managed
to break this barrier?
FA: I do, because they have stories to tell. They definitely have the
talent, and more and more technical facilities because of technological
development. However, this technical evolution is a curse at the
same time because on the one hand, quality standards are higher and
it doesn't depend on who has more money anymore. At the same time,
more films are being made but there aren't enough cinemas or festivals
to screen them.
Sooner or later though, there's going to be a strong competition with
the western talents. These are difficult times, and you really have
to breakthrough. Sometimes it takes more than talent and technical
facility, you can call it luck I suppose. Again, that's why it's very
important to support festivals from this part of the world to break
the western embargo on filmmaking.
.
NA: Technically speaking, how did you go about envisioning the visuals
of the film?
FA: Once I had the final screenplay, I decided on the rules that
I needed to apply. I wanted to make something personal that deals
with the genocide in the form of a Western. What I really like about
Westerns is the combination of space and subject, and how space can
create a sense of loneliness.
I don't like working in studios because they are too limiting, there
are always pleasant surprises when you shoot in the wild. We had rain
pouring over us, real sandstorms, and stray cats walking through
the frame that were not in the screenplay, but the cinematographer
decided to continue shooting. That's why I like filming outside,
because you get to catch nature and light.
.
NA: Some people criticized you for limiting the scope and not showing
the actual size of the genocide, how do you feel about that?
FA: It's not always about quantity, it's also about quality. I was
not shooting a documentary, and it's not easy choreographing those
crowds in Jordanian deserts, and it costs a lot as well. The film
was always meant to be styled as a 1960s classic Western.
.
NA: Like "The Good, the Bad and The Ugly"?
FA: Yes, some critics say we shouldn't be making this kind of film
anymore, but everything is being circulated in arts. "Mad Men" brought
back 1960s fashion. Five or ten years ago, the same people would've
said no one would ever be wearing those clothes again, but everything
goes in circles, nothing moves in the same direction.
.
NA: To put things in a larger context, you talked before about how
"The Cut" is a part of the Love, Death and the Devil trilogy.
FA: I think the three films are my journey discovering and reflecting
on Turkey. "Head-On" was very limited in terms of space, it took
part inside hotel rooms in certain neighborhoods of Istanbul, but
through my work in "Head-On", I met interesting people, refugees,
political prisoners and thinkers, and through them I was exposed to
interesting stories that lead to the making of "Edge of Heaven". Space
was not limited in "Edge of Heaven", the film eventually ends in a
small village at the very eastern end of Turkey.
Through "Edge of Heaven", I met more people like Orhan Pamuk and found
out more about minorities, and realized that a lot of the problems
in modern-day Turkey originate in the period between 1915 and 1923,
which "The Cut" is set in; hence, the idea of the trilogy is to try
to really personally understand my parents' country.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress