Yet, when I heard that Vince Gilligan was making a sequel about Jesse Pinkman’s fate, I was thrilled, to say the least. Not because I cared about Jesse, but because Gilligan is one of my top 3 most favourite directors. Actually, top 2. Well, since Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s failure with “Wild Pear Tree”, Mr.Gilligan is my most favourite director. A kind that you’d queue up for hours and blindly throw your money at.

Now, the 2 hours of El Camino is over and I am not as enthusiastic as before.

El Camino is a finely directed and produced movie. It is thoroughly well-written, too. Murad argues that it does not contribute to the overall story line, but maybe it was never about the story line. I could easily write a dozen of very decent quotes from El Camino. People from all walks of life could talk about Jesse’s situation and decisions for hours. And that is the art that Gilligan delivers, which he usually magnificently weaves into a superb story line. So, no matter how perfect, the story line has always been secondary. Therefore, it could very well be that Gilligan didn’t seek to contribute to the overall story with El Camino, hence why he failed in that department (read Murad’s opinion on why and how he failed).

But this failure was not what made me uncomfortable watching Jesse driving off in Alaska and the credits rolling.

Let me go back to saying that Vince Gilligan is my favourite director and I adore his work like no one else’s. Every time I say this, tho, I pause for a second and think about Hancock.

Until now, that feature was his only mediocre work in the past two decades. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, as he was not the one who wrote the original script, it was his first feature, etc. But El Camino completed “the Gilligan puzzle” for me.

Vince Gilligan has a peculiar story-telling technique. He sets up the scene carefully and sweats every detail, gives us insight into the characters’ emotional situation, provides the necessary background (isn’t he big on flashbacks), and then triggers the action. No wonder that action ends up making perfect sense and leaving a lasting impact. And apart from being a genius writer and a skillful director, he needs one essential ingredient to achieve these – time. Which he usually has plenty of. Take Better Call Saul – four seasons in, and it is only just stepping into what the story is really about. Long story short, it is Gilligan’s signature to roll a slow introduction into the action.

He does not have that luxury in a feature film.

If you tried to elevator-pitch Breaking Bad, it would have sounded mediocre at best. Unlike Inception, Slumdog Millionaire, Catch Me If You Can, et. al. Yet, Breaking Bad is a masterpiece that made a bold mark in the history of cinematography. This paradox is rooted in the fact that its storyline is secondary. Thinking of El Camino, that is the one phrase that comes to my mind – an elevator pitch of upcoming series.

Murad said that El Camino felt like three movies squashed into one. I claim that each one of those three could be made into a season, especially considering Gilligan’s narration techniques. That’s exactly what I watched in those 2 hours of Netflixing – an abridged supercut of 3 seasons of a brilliant series that will never exist.

Going back to “the Gilligan puzzle” – the missing piece is his elevator-pitching skills.

Now that Jesse Pinkman sorted his vacuum cleaner, are we back to Saul Goodman’s path to his Hoover MaxExtract 60? I certainly hope so, and I want to see my favourite director back at doing what he does the best.

The post A <s>Breaking</s> Bad Movie appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

It is a story of a young man, who grew up in Can village in Canakkale, Western Anatolia. He returns to his hometown after graduating from a university in Canakkale city as a teacher. But he is not particularly happy about returning, as he doesn’t like his hometown or its people. Also, he will most probably be appointed to a teaching position at remote Eastern Anatolia, as well as he has to attend compulsory military service. His family is not doing very well. They have a land parcel in the outskirts of Can, where his father spends most of his free time.

But there is another side to this young man. He is an aspiring writer and has written his first book. He is desperately looking for a sponsor to publish this book, asking for not a very large sum, but gets rejection on every occasion. The plotline revolves around his relationships with his father (in the context of his father’s reputation as a gambler), rebellion to authority and bending one’s own principles when the worldly desires demand it.

Writing

Very much in the NBC-style, the plotline of “The Wild Pear Tree” aims at setting up the psychological scene for the resolution of the hero’s internal conflict. He does it in a superb manner, although it takes more than 2.5 hours of screen time to achieve it. That sends some people to sleep, but keeps most viewers on their toes for the entire time. I prefer books to movies, because books can explore and reflect characters deeper. NBC’s plotlines are the closest point that ‘a movie’ gets to ‘a book’. That’s what makes him stand out.

Directing

Another signature that NBC put in his movies used to be amazing cinematography. He likes longs shots, too – to much so that, his earlier movies (like “Once Upon a Time in Anatolia“) at times did resemble a collage of stunning photos with audio captions. “Winter Sleep” (2014) was the ultimate meeting point of his cinematography and scriptwriting – beautiful scenes within an indulgent storyline. “Wild Pear Tree” did not live up to the NBC-level cinematography, which was mostly due to the editing. The editors also did not appreciate the still shots that accompanied lengthy conversations that we are used to see in the NBC movies. The jump cuts between the conversing characters or with the environment would have, maybe, not stood out in any other movie. However, for an NBC movie it felt quite quirky.

Acting

And one more negative point for the movie comes from the choice of actors. Particularly, the main character (Sinan) and his father (Idris) did not fit their roles well. Their acting was on the highest level and I cannot say anything about that. However, the personalities did not seem to fit the characters. Comedian Dogu Demirkol plays Sinan, who was trying to be as casual as he could, to hide his professional traits. However, occasional sarcastic grins did slip through. As for Idris (Murat Cemcir), his strong voice, sharp gaze and more theatrical manner of acting curtained the true nature of the Idris character.

Summary

I thoroughly enjoyed yet another piece by Nuri Bilge Ceylan. A Cannes-regular (and winner) and never been nominated for the Oscars, he certainly knows how to leave lasting impressions. His dialogues in “The Wild Pear Tree” are deep and views are protrusive. However, this time his masterpiece was partially spoiled by sub-NBC-standard casting, editing and cinematography.

The post The Wild Pear Tree appeared first on Kino-AZ.