Voilà @annemyunansevermi - Tumblr Blog

A Blog on Hunt for Justice

“While civilization was firmly tied to the West, Eastern Europe shifted to an imaginary location somewhere in between civilization and barbarism.” Anikó Imre.

The Europe in Eastern Europe should not fool us. It is still “the other” to Europe, Western Europe, says Aniko Imre. Here, in the tragic story of Yugoslavia, we exactly see this. The movie Hunt for Justice is the story of Canadian prosecutor Lousie Arbour who overcame the impossibility of intertwined relations within UN and between the UN and NATO which made UN reluctant to intervene in the war in Milosevic’s Yugoslavia. The main fear to start arresting war criminals was the possibility of Serbia to start the war again, with the help of Russia -called “big brother” of Serbia by the French general in the movie. He actually becomes almost a spokesperson for the UN and says “...peace here and that is our priority. Putting a few men in jail won’t bring back their dead but it might bring back some war. It’s too risky.” Throughout the movie we see how “liberal, Anglo-saxon+French nature of Canada” can bring justice and overcome the tangled “old world politics” of Europe.

It is not the opening scene but the plot of the movie starts with a scene where two UN officers discuss the appointment of Louise Arbour and one of them, Keller is not happy about it because he thinks an academic can not handle a real tribunal, especially as such, since it requires more experience to understand UN politics. However, later, when Arbour achieved the first criminals got arrested, he actually came and apologized for doubting her. This was made happen with her idea on closing other cases and focusing only three most documented events, the massacre in Bosnia, Dubredova prison camps and hospital massacre in Croatia, of course with the considerable help of British captain John Tenner. This is an important point to touch upon for two reasons. First, she received help two times and both came from British army, namely the captain and the general, when the French general continuously tried to make her step back. We know that France always wanted Yugoslavia in one piece and this joke-like behavioral distinction between three top generals of the UN army in this war zone simply exemplifies it. The motivation behind Brits looks like they are in the favor of justice -although Britain’s attitude was very much parallel with France. Captain Tenner is very sensitive about the distinction between a criminal and a soldier as we see how much it annoys him to see letting pass the group of suspected and unrespectful young men. After the suicide and dead of two “criminals” before the end of their trials, Arbour got stucked into almost a hopeless situation but the discovery of another mass grave in Kosovo and the delivery of “all British intelegence on Yugoslavia” brought the beginning of the “happy” end, the trial of the Milošević. For sure, these would not be possible if Arbour was any less determinant.

The French title of the movie is “Louise Arbour : combat pour la justice” and it is fair enough when we think that movie was made by Canadian tv. The narrative of the movie goes around her and this is actually unpleasant at first glance because it makes you think that there is something wrong. I believe any audience would expect to see the people of ex-Yugoslavia and what happened there more centrally placed. However, I found this choice reasonable because it literally made the movie easier to watch for the general public. On the other hand, the role given to the second most important character of the movie, Pasha Odzak tries to balance this emphasis. He makes the necessary connection with the humanitarian, individual experience - with what actually happened. The movie actually starts with his dream and ends with his visit to Arbour. We only see little glimpses of “what-would-have-been-the-Yugoslavian-experience” and more relatable dynamics of ethnic conflict through his presence. The scene where he is the translator, the arrested, Serbian ex-mayor asks his name in order to detect his “ethnicity.” I find it as the most striking truth about this geography that in order to know the ethnicity, people actually do have to ask their names, basically a determinant of their religio-cultural heritage. This is the perfect summary of centuries old but still irrational hatred which is beyond being only the ethnic conflict.

I think it is a successful movie because despite its heavy political content, it does not leave you with a bold claim and that is why it is not easy to determine its aim. -If this is what is actually aimed. I feel like to say “you can achieve as long as you try hard” would be naive in this example even though there is obviously a touch of self-marketing on behalf of Canada. If Arbour is the personification of Canada, her success story can legitimately be Canada’s too. What I can come up with is the sense of a crush between old and new worlds, the change in mentalité. As a key character, Tenner’s multinationality is also highlighted and as a half American and half English, he serves in the British army. It is remarkable how Pasho corrects the ex-mayor when he refers to Arbour as American while he was being insulted by the ex-mayor. Hunt for Justice addresses -it looks like it tries to address- the change in the thought of nationality from the age of nation state to the age of “liberal” state by representing coexistence as what is aimed.

PS: Ridiculously, the second most important character of the movie, Pasha Odzak was not given place on the movie poster. Instead, we see the UN generals who did almost nothing both in movie and history.

PS2: It is such a cinematographically poor movie.

1.) Anikó Imre, “The Socialist Historical Film,” in Postcolonial Cinema Studies

2.) Charles Binamé, Hunt for Justice (2005, Canada: Galafilm Productions Inc., Tatfilm)

#huntforjustice #louisearbour #yugoslavia #un

ozu-teapot

Affair in the Snow | Yoshishige Yoshida | 1968

avina

vladimir nabokov’s butterfly collection

weedstoner-archive

porn is one of the most insidious industries out there. it hides misogyny and violence against women under a thin veil of sexual “liberation”, and worst of all, it’s totally 100% accessible to anyone on the internet, especially young boys, who are now watching porn as early as 12 (on average). that should scare the shit out of you, and if it doesn’t, you’re not paying attention

inziladun

Walter Crane (English, 1845 - 1915)

iamabax

Vesikalı Yarim üzerine bir Blog

Eğri oturup doğru konuşalım. Türk sinemasının en “en” üç filminden biridir Vesikalı Yarim. Üstüne sadece sayfalarca yazı yazılmaz, üstüne akademik makaleler, tezler yazılır. Sait Faik’in bir hikayesinden uyarlanan film 1968 yılında Lütfi Akad tarafından çekilmiş. Yıl da bir hayli manidar, değil mi? O yıl Altın Portakal’da en iyi ikinci film ödülünü almış. Bilin bakalım birinci olan hangi film? İnce Cumali. (Evet ben de adını ilk defa duyuyorum.)

Filmin iki ana izleyicisi varsa eğer bunlar anlatılan aşkın büyüsüne kapılanlar ve işlenilen olayı toplumsal gerçeklikten koparamayanlar olarak ayrılabilir. İyi işlenmiş bir aşk hikayesine karşı koymayı hiçbir zaman başaramamış biri olarak ikisine de eşit uzaklıkta olduğumu söyleyebilirim çünkü film bittikten sonra aklıma çakılı kalan final sahnesi değil, Halil’in evine döndüğü sahne oldu -geçiştirmek için değil, spoiler miktarını minimumda tutmak için böyle diyorum.

Bu filmi modernleşme kuramı ve toplumsal cinsiyet dinamikleri üzerinden okumak mümkün. İlginçtir ki Lütfi Akad’ın “Aşk Üçgeni” üçlemesinin ilk filmi olan Vesikalı Yarim’de üçlemedeki diğer filmlerin aksine sınıf çatışması göze çarpmıyor. Ancak adının neden Seninle Ölmek İstiyorum olduğunu anlayamadığımız 1969 yılında aynı baş oyuncularla çekilen 3. film adeta bu duruma antitez olarak olarak modernleşme eleştirisinin sınıf eleştirisine yedirilmesiyle yapılmış, ama başarılamamış bir film. İkisinin arasında kalan ve 1968′de çekilen Kader Böyle İstedi bu konuda ilginç bir yerde. Ağır Sevmek Zamanı etkisiyle Akad’ın modernizm-sınıfsallık hassasiyetini çok çok daha iyi bir biçimde işlemiş.

Vesikalı Yarim’i büyüleyici bir film yapan “Aşk Üçgeni”ndeki üçüncü köşeyi tam olarak idrak etmemizi önleyebilmesi, bunu sonsuz öz muhakemelere açık hale getirmesi. Bu, üçüncü kişinin nerdeyse görünmez biri olmasının yanında gerçekte böyle biri olup olmadığını bize sordurması ve hatta üçüncü kişinin toplumsal koşullandırmalar, köklenmiş gelenekler, aile bağları, bireyin sorumlulukları olabileceğini düşündürmesinde açıkça gözüküyor. Mesela Seninle Ölmek İstiyorum’un üçüncü kişisi parmakla gösterilebilecek önyargısal, zengin, yaşlı, antipatik ve kötü koca olduğu için bu, iyi bir film olması önündeki büyük engellerden biri.

Oyuncu seçimi üzerine ne söylenebilir ki. İdealar dünyasındaki Türk kadın ve erkek tipinin izdüşümü adeta. Bu üçlemenin üçünde de oynayan İzzet Günay muhakkak Akad’ın “ideal ve cool” erkek anlayışını perdeye en iyi yansıtabilecek kişi. Hoş, bu Akad’a özgü bir tip değil elbette. Yağmurlu haftasonlarında denk gelinen Yeşilçam Kuşağı esnasında yapılan favori jön tartışmalarında annemin biz gençlerin adını pek duymadığı Günay’ı anması boşuna değilmiş. Vesikalı Yarim Günay’ın izlediğim ilk filmiydi ve çabucak annemin seçiminin nedenini anladım. Filmdeki rolünden öte, özellikle kadın izleyiciye bu toplumda uzun yıllardır erkeklikle özleştirilmiş her şeyi tek pakette sunuyor gibi. Her ne kadar çok iyi seçimler olmasa da sanırım betimlemek için “ağır” ve “güvenilir” diyebiliriz.

Türkan Şoray kendisi zaten Türk sinemasında Türk kadınının en idealize edilmiş hali. Bu imajının yaratılmasında nispeten erken dönem Akad filmlerinin etkisini de kayda değer olmalı çünkü Akad Şoray’ı en dişi haliyle göstermeyi seçmiş -istemiş? Bunda rollerin de etkisi vardır tabi ama gördüğümüz kadın yeni kuşağın 2010lu yıllarda Dolce & Gabbana gibi geleneksel dişiliği kutlayan ve bunu Sofia Loren ve Monica Bellucci gibi kadınlarla yapan markaların yaptığını gördüğü gibi bir imaja sahip. Filmde bu Halil’in Sabiha’nın parfümü ve küpelerine dair söyledikleriyle de dile geliyor zaten. Küpe demişken de, ya dönemin ağır modası buydu ya da Akad’ın bireysel bir küpe zaafı vardı. Her iki filmde de Şoray’ı sıfır kolye ve dillere destan küpelerle görüyoruz.

Bu ikilinin birlikte Türk çift normunu temsil etmesinin bir diğer örneği Birleşen Yollar (1970). Şule Yüksel Şenler’in meşhur Huzur Sokağı romanın uyarlaması olan filmin de baş oyuncuları İzzet Günay ve Türkan Şoray. Vesikalı Yarim’de tüketilen alkol ve girilen evililik dışı cinsel birliktelik miktarı düşünülünce bu bilgiyle insan kendini tuhaf bir durumda buluyor ancak ne olursa olsun toplumda olanı yansıtan sinema nerde nasıl bir taraf alacağına da yine üretim yaptığı topluma göre karar veriyor. Vesikalı Yarim de bu konuda bir istisna değil.

Tam olarak burda konuya filmdeki alkol temsilleri giriyor. İki Akad filminde de (Seninle Ölmek İstiyorum) alkol tüketimi “havalı” bağlamlarda gösterilse de aslında alkol tüketimine karşı eleştirel bir yaklaşım var. Özellikle kadınların içki içmesi olumsuzlanıyor. Karşımıza çıkan tek olumlu yaklaşım insanın sevdiğiyle birlikte içtiği alkol. Aksi takdirde kişileri üzüntülerinden kaçmak için alkole sığınırken görüyoruz.

#vesikalıyarim #türkan şoray #izzet günay #lütfi akad #60s cinema

mffled

“Romans” by Mashrou Leila

Equality. Solidarity. Intersectionality. #charge

“The video self-consciously toys with the intersection of gender with race by celebrating and championing a coalition of Arab and Muslim women, styled to over-articulate their ethnic background, in a manner more typically employed by Western media to victimise them.

This seeks to disturb the dominant global narrative of hyper-secularised (white) feminism, which increasingly positions itself as incompatible with Islam and the Arab world, celebrating the various modalities of middle-eastern feminism.

The video purposefully attempts to revert the position of the (male) musicians as the heroes of the narrative, not only by subjecting them to the (female) gaze of the director, but also by representing them as individuals who (literally) take the backseat as the coalition moves forward.

So while the lyrics of the verses discuss betrayal, struggle, and conflict, the video revolves around the lyrical pivot in the chorus: ‘aleihum (charge!) treating oppression, not as a source of victimhood, but as the fertile ground from which resistance can be weaponised.”

cma-islamic-art

Peacock-shaped Hand Washing Device (recto); Text Page, Arabic Prose (verso), 1315, Cleveland Museum of Art: Islamic Art

This leaf from a 1315 Syrian copy of Ibn al-Razzāz al-Jazarī’s The Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices, written in 1206, depicts a peacock basin automaton for ritual hand washing. There are 15 surviving manuscript copies of al-Jazarī’s work, ranging from the early 13th to the late 19th century. An engineer from upper Mesopotamia, al-Jazarī was in the service of King Nasrī al-Dīn when he completed his masterwork, an anthology of automated devices including clocks, trick vessels for drinking sessions, devices for washing, fountains, water-raising machines, and measuring instruments. His designs clearly illustrate that automata were not innovations from Western Europe, but they stemmed from a tradition known in the ancient, Islamic, and Byzantine worlds. We do not know with certainty that al-Jazarī’s device was ever actually constructed. Size: Overall: 31.3 x 21.5 cm (12 5/16 x 8 7/16 in.) Medium: opaque watercolor and gold on paper

https://clevelandart.org/art/1945.383

A blog on The King

Short story: It was about be a bad movie but it ended brilliantly.

Long story: I don't know where to start.

I believe the movie has two main groups of audience, medieval enthusiast whose main motivation is to see some damn-good war scenes and beloved fans of Timothée Chalamet. Former is roughly satisfied and the second is happy to moon.

King Henry V is someone real guys, but it is said that the movie is mainly based on Shakespeare’s play, Henriad -more specifically Henry V, there are tons of Henry plays under the name Henriad- which created his own King Henry. So, we have a real struggle of historical facts and historical historical fiction. However, I really don't think that this problem needs that much attention because The King is a character movie, like the play. Yes, Shakespeare loved young man in existential crisis with lots of courage and virtue and whatever heroic characteristic required for traditional definition of manhood, and basically, he build his characters through this image.

Movie follows this legacy well, so well that I would call it “a ballad to man-making” -or king-making?- We see only 4 (four) women in total in this 130 minutes movie, no name girl who happened to sleep with him (Henry), matron of the inn where he was wasted during his earlier days, his sister and his wife -or let’s say princess of France. Well, this is a men’s world certainly but our French queen achieved to be the most drastic character of the movie. Guess when she appears in the movie though. Last 10 minutes.

I think the biggest problem of the movie is its structure. Let’s face it, it is a slow movie. We only have three changes in atmosphere, Henry becomes the king, Henry goes to war, Henry learns the truth. Rest is conversations between a young king and dignitaries around him. A great cinematographer or an outstanding composer might save it by making us not notice that slowness, however, even Henry’s smart-ass oratory talent wasn't enough. What we have in hand are very good costumes and brilliant acting.

Let’s also face with this. Timothée Chalamet is writing history, just in front of us. We’re literally witnessing the birth of something. His casting doesn't seem like a coincidence. The change in his body language throughout the movie shouldn't miss from eyes. Without his fluent French, we wouldn't have this gasp of well-deserved king image that clearly -yes for this, they sacrificed the English accent. Everyone is praising Robert Pattinson’s French-accented English but they miss the political message of the movie. There is a well-educated English king who is about to claim the French throne when his opponent, an arrogant, almost effeminate French successor who depicts an impotent ruler in most stereotypical way. I believe you get it. There is nothing changed since Dunkirk. Plus, I would like to remind you the recent British foreign policy really quick. Okay, that’s enough of conspiracy.

But, the movie doesn't let us leave with that opinion of “brave English men against French” which may make the audience think “There wouldn't have been a more typical historical movie.” The game changes so unbelievably towards the end that it makes you feel like you watched first two hours just for that end. Undoubtedly this is the most striking phase of the movie, even though it takes 10 minutes in total. The famous battle scene -not the scene, the battle itself is very famous- is also highly criticized by the type 1 audience for not being as glorious and ‘historical’ as it should be -horses they say, supposed to wear amour too they say, otherwise they say, they wouldn't have sink in mud they say........-. However, this is not a war movie and I believe that the director wanted to keep it that way on purpose so, the audience is left with that pure awe in the end.

What we left with in the end is a pure Machiavellian way of reading the human nature -or ruling nature. He named his book the Prince, pretty much in the same line with the King. You even can add Charles Tilly and hear him saying “Wars make states, states make wars.” But, wait, wasn't it that wars before make kings?

#theking #timothée chamalet #english #henry v #robert pattinson #emily rose depp #midevial #french #politics #machiavelli #theprince

1five1two

historical-nonfiction

When Michelangelo’s David was unveiled in 1504 in Florence, it was seen to symbolize the civil liberties of the Republic of Florence, which were threatened by the surrounding city-states and the powerful Medici family who wanted to rule. The republican government had only been in place since 1494. The republic’s concerns were well-founded: Giovanni de’ Medici re-conquered the republic in 1512 and restored Medici rule.

The second Florentine duke, Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici decided to commission Cellini’s Perseus With the Head of Medusa, which was unveiled exactly 50 years after David in 1554. Composed of bronze, Perseus was deliberately placed opposite the David. Medusa’s gaze appeared to have turned David to stone.