By Matt Zoller Seitz
The concept behind Lucid Screening's second annual April Fool's day White Elephant Blog-a-thon seems pretty straightforward: submit the title of a (presumably awful) movie for some other participant to review, then review whatever title happens to come your way. The spirit of the event is similar to the gag birthday gifts my friends and I used to give each other in high school -- a copy of Mr. T's autobiography; an album of movie themes performed disco-style. But what happens when the randomly assigned gag-gift film turns out to be something other than putrid? What if it turns out to be, if not great, then at least interesting?
I didn't expect to face this conundrum when the White Elephant Blog-a-thon's publisher, Benjamin Lim, sent me my assignment: Seytan, a 1974 Turkish remake of The Exorcist. But if you can get past the American DVD's astoundingly wretched presentation and the fact that the film was unabashedly conceived as a rip-off from the word go, Seytan is well worth a horror buff's time: cheaper and grungier than William Friedkin's groundbreakingly graphic demonic possession movie, and generally less scary, but also more cleanly plotted, thematically coherent, and sympathetic to its characters' plight.
First, the caveats: I don't believe I've ever seen a more atrocious DVD release of a foreign film, however disreputable. Home video versions of the most worthless American drive-in films of the '70s are treated with more care. The soundtrack is muddy, sometimes warped; the print of the movie is faded, scratched and in a few places, seemingly broken and then re-spliced. The disc appears to have been made from a substandard videotape master, probably one that was nearly played-out on a TV channel; there are digital artifacts the size of Scrabble tiles and bursts of visual noise that look like the thick horizontal bands that used to appear while adjusting the tracking on a VHS player. And not only are the subtitles ineptly translated, they're rife with random parentheticals that might be the subtitler's un-deleted research notes ("check Google") and snotty editorial comments (the final subtitle reads, "The End (* at last)"). And there's no shortage of hoot-able, only-in-a-horror-movie moments. The reaction shot of the hypnotist recoiling in agony when the devil-possessed heroine punches him in the 'nads might be even worse than Keanu Reeves' seemingly drug-addled "Holy shit, where am I?" reaction in Bram Stoker's Dracula when his character sees Vlad shape-shift into a bat monster. Stupidest of all is the early bit where the mother of the possessed girl hears echoing guttural voices emanating from an upper floor of her house, climbs the stairs to investigate, dotes on her sleeping child, Gül (Canan Perver), hears another ghastly, no-way-that's-anything-but-pure-evil growl coming from the attic, then tucks her daughter in and heads downstairs. ("There are mice up in the attic," she tells her servants the next morning. "They made too much noise last night." Do Turkish mice growl like Bengal tigers?)
Nevertheless, Seytan still compels a more than campy fascination. It's not just the superficial differences between Friedkin's adaptation of William Peter Blatty's Catholic exploitation novel and this Muslim-flavored remake; it's what the screenwriter Yilmaz Tümtürk and the director Metin Erksan do with the changes -- specifically, how they visualize a secular-minded, intellectual middle class that's confronted by a vomit-and-phlegm-spitting, mother-cursing, head-twisting, bed-levitating reason to bust out the Koran and get to a mosque, pronto. Seytan has more or less the same goal as The Exorcist (novel and film): to play on a contemporary Westernized society's deep-down fear that in abandoning (or glossing over) faith, its members have lost touch not just with the rituals and traditions that bind different social classes together, but with the uncanny and supernatural, and with the once pervasive belief that good and evil are not abstract concepts, but cosmic forces battling via human proxies.
The creature that possesses Gül isn't a generalized evil force (presumed to be Satan in the 1973 Exorcist, but specificed as the demon Pazuzu in Exorcist II: The Heretic) but The Devil Himself, sent to earth not merely to abuse and disfigure his mortal host, but to test the men and women around her. The Exorcist character of Father Karras, a young Catholic priest struggling with his faith, is changed here to a former psychologist and secular-minded Muslim named Tugrul Bilge (Cihan Ünal), author of the obscure academic book "Seytan," which (as far as I can tell from the mangled subtitles) posits a psychological explanation for demonic possession and the effects of exorcism.
For all its crudeness, the film is surprisingly adept at making its drama metaphorical and its metaphors dramatic. For instance, where The Exorcist had a grab-bag of vaguely defined and somewhat cynically deployed subtexts -- puberty, sexual hysteria, fear of the adult female body, a generalized adolescent sense of alienation -- Seytan grants the same material a more sincere and pointed treatment. It gives The Exorcist's "Is she evil or just mentally disturbed?" aspect more play, links it to the subject of Tugrul's book (which rationalizes uncanny events), and clearly establishes that the mom's soon-to-be-killed-by-Satan boyfriend is angling to replace the dad that young Gui lost to divorce -- a dad so disconnected from his daughter's life that he fails to attend her birthday party. It's more clear here than in Friedkin's version that the devil, who manifests himself in Gül after her birthday party (the notorious peeing-on-the-rug bit, replayed here with an oddly soupy, greenish urine), is an evil father figure that's simultaneously inhabiting a body and filling a psychic void.
On the flip side of the psychosexual fence, Tugrul's guilt over his mom (who goes from lonely widow to mental patient to dead and buried in no time) is made much more specific, and thematically relevant, in this cheapjack Turkish remake than in Friedkin's original. Tugrul's mother -- from appearances an Old World, presumably devout matriarch -- gave up so much to pay for Tugrul's college that she was briefly reduced to panhandling. Seytan juxtaposes Tugrul's mother's sacrifice on behalf of a son that takes her for granted with Gül's dad's neglect of a daughter that craves paternal guidance. This compare/contrast strategy (devoted mother and unappreciative son, distant father and needy daughter) isn't subtle. But it makes a clearer metaphorical case than The Exorcist for the notion that organized religion (the parents) and the masses (the children) are estranged from each other, that there's blame on both sides, and that a failure to reconcile through ritual and tradition invites evil to slip in and fill the emotional/spiritual gap.
Overall, one can't help being struck by the difference in tone between The Exorcist and Seytan. The former is undeniably more technically slick and viscerally effective; it's hard to imagine anyone being as weirded out by the Turkish version, with its acrylic-paint-looking body fluids and its theft of the Exorcist theme "Tubular Bells" (plainly lifted from a scratchy vinyl LP; you can hear the needle drop!). Nevertheless, Seytan boasts touches that suggest that despite their poverty, the filmmakers sweated the small stuff, from the many precise, Italian horror-style snap-zooms to the moment where the police inspector tells Tugrul that the ghastly circumstances of her boyfriend's death (he was tossed from the girl's bedroom window and found at the base of a long staircase, his head twisted 180 degrees on his neck) echoes his book's description of how the devil punished arrogant sorcerers. A few scenes later, the inspector asks the mom if her daughter recalls what happened that night; in the very next scene, the devil twists the girl's head around in her mom's presence -- wordless confirmation that Satan killed the boyfriend in a manner intended to announce his presence to those who know their history.
None of this is meant to imply that Seytan is a neglected masterwork of horror -- only that even rip-offs can contain thoughtful touches, and that if we're unwilling to look past budget constraints and poor presentation and meet a film on its own terms, we'll never see them.
Matt Zoller Seitz is publisher of The House Next Door.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
White Elephant Blog-a-thon: Seytan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
This is fantastic Matt. I'm going to have to rent this now. Just out of curiosity, was this the first Turkish remake of an American film you've ever seen?
Satin RULES!
at Macys Prom dress shop this spring. Shiny!
yes, what a great review, neither unjustly glorifying the movie or following the tendency to completely dismiss it. impressive.
I bet it's not as good as "Turkish Star Wars", which uses the Indiana Jones theme for a "Star Wars" rip off. They just really liked George Lucas, I guess.
Blim: Yes, it's the first Turkish remake of an American film that I've seen.
I've seen countless remakes of American films from other countries -- Japan, China, France, Italy, on and on -- but never Turkey. Apparently there's a whole unexplored (to me) continent of idiosyncratic rip-offs coming from that country.
The Man Who Saves the World, a.k.a. Turkish Star Wars, is well worth seeing in its entirety at least once in your life. Google Video has the whole thing with English subtitles - or did about a year ago, at any rate.
It's entirely possible the word "special" in "special effects" was added entirely to distinguish such effects from the ones used in this film, which are something else entirely.
What is it, UFO-on-a-string type stuff?
Matt:
It's been a few years since I have seen "Turkish Star Wars", but what I remember about the special effects is that they were on par with the Power Rangers. Lots of sparks and smoke. What makes "Turkish Star Wars" so great is that the majority of the special effects (and a good chunk of the film) are straight out of a "Star Wars" VHS. It's one of the most wonderful things you will ever see. Especially the end fight scene where the audio cuts between a few seconds of the Indiana Jones theme and their own audio, and back to the Indian Jones theme, and so forth.
It will give you a headache within 30 seconds, guaranteed. So, naturally I recommend that everyone see the "film".
The particular effect I was thinking of happens near the very end, when the villain has been split down the middle by the hero's karate chop. This is illustrated by two successive closeups of the dead villain's face as he's lying on the ground. In one shot the left side of the camera lens is covered, showing only one half of his face while the rest of the screen is black, and in the other shot only the right side is covered. It's a visual effect a three-year-old child might come up with.
The stolen Star Wars effects are pretty amazing, too. Basically you see the hero in his cockpit, while outside his window random scenes from the Death Star battle (which repeatedly cut and change POV without any corresponding editing of the cockpit footage) are projected. Accompanied by the aforementioned Raiders theme.
(Gluttons for Star-Wars-"inspired" masochism are also encouraged to check out a tacky little 1978 production called Starcrash, if only to see Christopher Plummer intone "Imperial battleship, halt the flow of time!" with a straight face. It's not nearly as fun as the Turkish ripoff, but it's still more enjoyable than Episodes I or II.)
Around about 1983 or 84, I distinctly remember seeing an edited-for-TV Hong Kong wire-stunt film on local TV in Dallas that was scored with random soundtrack cues from "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Even as a teenager I remember being amazed that the filmmakers got away with this, and that an American TV station would show it without hesitation.
--- The Man Who Saves the World, a.k.a. Turkish Star Wars, is well worth seeing in its entirety at least once in your life. Google Video has the whole thing with English subtitles - or did about a year ago, at any rate. ---
If anyone can post a link to this, I'd be curious to watch this -- or at least a few minutes of it!
Do Turkish mice growl like Bengal tigers?
Incidentally, that was the name of the aborted sequel to Philip K Dick’s seminal novel…
Interesting review, Matt. You touch on a few excellent points, and I’d like to give a little background. I have been mulling the idea of doing a piece on Turkish knock-offs on my blog, and I will definitely dedicate a long passage to Seytan.
Until the mid-eighties, Hollywood films used to get releases in Turkey years after their US openings. My parents tell a story of how they were shocked to see Star Wars get a Turkish release in 1978, merely a year after it opened in the US, only to skive off work, take in a matinee, and realise that it was a Hong Kong rip-off called War Star. So it was quite common for producers to come up with knock-offs before the films had a chance to open.
Another important point to consider is that Turkish cinema never had huge funds to back it. Yesilcam, as the street in Istanbul where the production companies had their offices (mainly in studio flats), had to produce more populist products in order to make money so that they could make their next film. It was also in the early seventies that television started to have a real impact on Turkish cinema, and many companies turned to producing soft-porn (an untapped resource of fun for all arsehole fratboys now bored with Turkey’s sci-fi knock-offs), or just ripping off foreign films. The latter had been relatively common practice for decades, but the films that gained true notoriety in the US are all post-73/74.
Seytan needs to be considered separately from the rest of the Yesilcam knock offs. It was directed by Metin Erksan, arguably the first Turkish auteur director, whose Susuz Yaz (Dry Summer) won the Golden Bear in Berlin in 1964 (Fun fact: Fatih Akin’s beautiful Head On which won the Golden Bear in 2004 is a stereotypical Yesilcam romance). The man knew what he was doing, and he knew that the film was a carbon copy to rake in the cash in order to finance his next, more personal, project. Still, he managed to fill the film with flourishes of, if not brilliance, then textual and thematic flare. When Bilge (Turkish for wise) confronts his uncle and they have a conversation about his book, the pair, almost suddenly, start engaging in a conversation about Bilge’s mother. There is a zoom in on Bilge, who, in the next shot, goes to see his mother, has a conversation about her happiness, which is followed by a quick zoom out of the two shot of the mother and son. It’s not only textbook Eisensteinian editing (which the director, at times, completely foregoes), but it also introduces that hint of whether or not Bilge’s conversation with his mother was real, or in his head.
It’s not a good film – I know that. I try to overlook the technical shortcomings - they had a tiny budget shooting the film, and it’s understandable they would end up with such third rate effects. Nonetheless, the film is fascinating in a bizarre way. I am glad you picked up on the tradition/secularism angle. Any other “Muslim” country, and it would have felt tacked on. But if you know at least the most basic facts about Turkey, then what the film presents is not just exposition to fill the gaps between the pissing and the puking, but instead a valid moral dilemma punctuated by the respective bodily functions. I think it a better film than the Omen flicks, or Alberto De Martino’s The Antichrist, which is a less blatant copy of Friedkin’s film. So what it’s almost a mirror image of the original? So is The Ballad of Peter Pumpkinhead by Crash Test Dummies, and their version is infinitely superior to XTC’s original.
=====
Jeremiah Kipp:
Re: The Turkish Star Wars
Here is the training montage from the Turkish Star Wars.
And here is an extended clip from the film.
It’s obviously very tongue-in-cheek. In a meta-moment around the 4.50 mark, the two heroes have the following conversation:
- Do you know what caused the Atomic War that destroyed the Earth?
- What?
- Seriousness. Too much of it, and it gets boring. Had people chosen levity instead of gravity, they would have also chosen peace, not war.
Here's "The Man Who Saves the World" in its entirety, subtitled:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7069307816427160377
Happy viewing...
Nice and informative post.
Post a Comment