Barda (2007) Reviews

• The results of lack of communication, social and moral values, the justice system...

  soysaldeniz2007-04-17

  This movie depicts human relations.It shows the inevitable gaps between people and like the movie "Babel" it also shows how important communication is; because most of the things throughout the movie happen because of lack of communication. It also questions the judicial system in Turkey. People don't understand each other and in fact sometimes they don't want to. Most of the people evaluate others with the things they own, they wear or with their occupations. As if the Social status of a person has become the criterion of being a human. I mean if your social status is low, you are not respected, you are accepted as a "non-human" You see what one can do when he has nothing to lose. "It's only after you lose everything that you are free to do anything" (quote from fight club) Selim and his gang have nothing to lose, so they are free -actually they think they are free to do anything; because what else they can lose? People's non-existing respect? Money? What? The answer is nothing. You can't lose what you don't have. Torturing is their self-masturbation, destruction is their revenge. Yet this is questionable: "Do we have the right to take justice into our hands." Nothing is unreal in the movie. Loved it

  More

• Violence, comes from within with no reason?

  Vefizoo2007-02-02

  Barda is the next attempt of director Serdar Akar. He has made some remarkable films like "Gemide" and "Dar Alanda Kisa Paslasmalar". With his new step, he tries to bring forth the violence in the Turkish society. A group of young and gonna-be part of high society friends, gather at a bar they frequently visit. One night, some guys looking awfully scary and dangerous enters and these two classes known to live together on the streets are left to fight trapped in a bar... Well, to be honest, this is not the best picture from director Akar. Especially the characters of the youngsters are not accordingly established. The court scenes are far from being realistic. Especially the young actors does not seem to be ready for their parts. But the main issue here is that Turkish cinema and Turkish directors do not generally operate as artists who carries on their duty as an observer of the society. This film drives straight into that misty field... The violence is everywhere in Turkey as well as the world, in the streets, in the metro, at the schools etc. but this somehow seems to be unseen by the Turkish cinema. Because, people would love to sleep and think that everything's going fine as long as the tragedy doesn't touch them. But that's not true at all. The truth is out there, in this film. Although it has some major negative sides, it's a brave step trying to show the reality... Based upon a true story, what's happening is horrible, unbelievable and unacceptable. But you gotta see it to get to do something about it... ****** spoiler ********* By the way, at the ending of the film, the guys in the jail attacking the others are Zeki Demirkubuz, Cagan Irmak and Serdar Akar himself (the other two being some important Turkish directors). Seems like, the artists are trying to attack the mentality behind these horrible acts. Bad dream, nice try...

  More

• Hard to swallow, deserves "reconsideration"

  e_karasan2007-03-04

  This is not a Haneke film, they are not in the same league. This fact doesn't harm this special film. It's special because it gives the universal brutality of human nature in a local way. Bad guys are doing wonderful job in their particular performances. Nejat Isler, playing brutal yet charismatic gang leader in a very convincing way. Other bad guys were also doing wonderful job, they are so hateable! Many of movie goers didn't like the "tgg"(reconsider) philosophy in the movie. I don't agree, this is some kind of call for sanity, even after such a brutal experience. Being human or just not being... I highly recommend this hard hitting film, makes you go hmm...

  More

• In some ways better than Haneke

  ruhi-yaman2008-01-22

  Turkish cinema is constantly maturing. This is one of the best explorations of the social divide and culture of envy present in modern Turkey. Inevitable comparisons are made to works of Haneke, particularly to Funny Games. The film does not have the virtuosity of Haneke, but it also does not have Haneke's patronising, barely disguised sermons against bourgeoisie. The middle class young people are not hedonistic, divorced from reality buffheads. They exist within a different reality from the nether class hoons that invade their world. Some left-leaning Turkish viewers that would like to see any city-dwelling Turk from a non-working class background as vermin will not be pleased. However, social strata in Turkey is not black and white anymore - if it ever were... It won't be a spoiler to state that the violent scenes are difficult to watch and some might find those out of place in a film that is decidedly anti-violence. To me, the uber-realism of those scenes carried the subtext of the film: Do not kid yourself. Violence is ugly, brutal and it never leads to anything positive. There is no justification for it. Thanks to the viewer that had recognized the directors at the end of the film. I would have missed that message if it weren't for him/her. Not that it would have made any difference to my assessment.

  More

• Disturbing but also satisfying.

  akdasmurat2007-05-17

  A good example for convincing that Turkish filmmakers CAN do good movies too. The story been told is presented in a sharp way and not interfered to prove any moral ideas (except for the end of the movie).Because the story itself has a lot to say and makes it easier for the director to show the causes of events. But it seems that director couldn't stand keeping the story this way until the end. It's not a surprise that such events in the movie inspire a mixture of intense feelings such as desperation and vengeance. Well that's where the director fell into the trap. If the movie did not end the way it did and the audience left the movie with the realistic consequences of a brutal event's after(not left with the relief that the bad got what they deserved), it could be much affective to establish the sense that the director passionately believed. It seems that director kept his words for the end. The world is changing and now we do can make differences and are not that desperate. That's why the ending is unnecessarily long. To listen to the director! Rest of the movie is a way different story. The characters really remind you easily like "oh man, this is gonna be bad!" just by their existence. The struggle between two different way of understanding life is just simply screened. The clues for causes behind the physical violence are "injected" slowly, consciously and agreeably. The places and characters are familiar with the usual life we have. I don't agree with the idea that the violence shown is unnecessarily much. On the contrary, you just happen to understand that a very brutal action carries on while you don't actually see it. It just gives you the clue of the action but not unnecessarily giving. This is not a "Hostel" type movie. I also found it absurd to define a true story been filmed as a teenagers daydreams. It seems that the main point here is missing. Yes, the jail scenes are not that convincing. And yes, the director became a little emotional. But that shows you even the filmmaker could not resist responding to the manner in the way we "common people" respond. And it proves that the actual problems of our society is reminded. (Maybe not that deliberately but that's the result.)

  More