User Reviews

Read AFTER you watch the movie (it is worth watching again, anyway): I grew up in Turkey (Turkiye). Turkish is my native tongue. Although this film received much-deserved international acclaim, it is sad that the subtitles are not always accurate (I wonder if they were improved upon later). A crucial point that should not be missed is this: A few minutes into the film, on an ox-cart with his uncle and his son, the father talks about finding a job and sending his son to school ("If only the boy could learn."). What is not translated is that he is told, during the military service (where each soldier is expected to at least learn to read and write), that he and his kind are not 'men', but they should strive to make 'men' out of their children. This shows one good thing about Turkey, and one disgrace: Turkey does offer some opportunities for poor children to excel through education, etc. (ethnicity or 'class' is not destiny there); but it has next to no program for 'adult education'. What became even worse since the times depicted in the film is that many villages and small towns that _did_ have decent schools had to close them due to accelerated migration to cities. Involuntary migration, no doubt, is a global problem, and one for which no political ideology seems prepared for...

Another thing I must note for the non-Turkish viewers is that Genco Erkal (the father) is a highly-educated 'actor's actor' who received many awards in his 40+ year career. I was privileged to watch him in his one-man play of Gogol's "Diary of a Madman". Some think that he can easily go 'over the top'. To his credit, in this film, he gives no hint that he is anything more than a poor and ignorant (almost emasculated) peasant.

Some of the music is by Okay Temiz, one of the most respected (Turkish) instrumental musicians in Europe.

I have not lived in villages like the one depicted here, and I never saw a supposedly traditional 'play' like the one that opens the film. However, I see very little in this film that is unfair or unkind to life experience in Turkey. I can only say that, to the credit of no humans, Istanbul offers beautiful sceneries even to the poorest and most desperate visitors --once in a while. Besides, there are at least 2 architectural wonders in Istanbul that crown the tops of 2 hills, and there is no charge for gazing at them. I hope no one expects this movie to be fair to the city of Istanbul itself.

One minor point where the movie misrepresents life in Istanbul 'fairly' is when someone tries to sell some poetry on a ferry (one of their first experiences in the city). In several years of riding those ferries, I never witnessed such a classy sale! Perhaps it did happen somewhere, but I have the feeling that the director is making a plug for the poet, Ilhami Bekir, here. (I will be glad to see myself corrected.) Ilhami Bekir, whose poem is only poorly translated in the subtitles, was also orphaned at a young age; he died in 1984.

The mother who lost her son (and her mind)... Though I never saw a woman like that myself, I can't doubt that there must be an increasing number of them these days --with increasing prostitution, among other things...

It may be striking to some in 'the West' how strong these Turks' faith in education is --despite the common indifference of the educated people towards the poor! (I remember the comments of 'Kaffir Boy' on too few black Americans going to free libraries...) I suppose, there are many college graduates, these days, who are pushing similar carts in Istanbul.

It may also be striking how 'innocent' many of the boys are, compared to the stereotypical poor kids of 'inner cities' of the USA. It is perhaps a fair generalization (and unreliable as most generalizations go) that there is more widespread affection towards children and youngsters in Turkey, as compared to many Western societies. ('Dead-beat dad' is not a common expression in Turkey.) But there is too little social organization to protect children's rights.

This movie is well worth watching -- but not for its cinematography, and certainly not for its 'entertainment value'. Since it shows only a tiny sliver of life in Turkey, I hope no one expects it to suffice for a project of "Let's get to know about other cultures". It can go some distance, though. And, unlike many high-budget movies, this one at least gives you enough credit: It assumes that you are capable of compassionate social activism. One does not need to be a 'socialist' to see a redeeming value in this effort (I am definitely not one). Highly recommended for "Free the Children" supporters who are over 16 (there is a short and unglorified sex scene here, where the boy's tears are not uncharacteristic).

The film was dedicated to the director's father. Some may think that it is an 'adaptation' of "The Bicycle Thief (1949)" by Vittorio De Sica. It may be safe to assume that Ali Ozgenturk was familiar with that film. Still, one needs to ask him about his own experiences first...

Although Ali Ozgenturk's film is called "The Horse", we actually see very little of said animal. In the film we follow a father named Hüseyin and his son Ferhat as they move from their poverty stricken town in the Turkish countryside to Istanbul. Hüseyin is desperate to find enough money so he can send his son to school, and Ferhat hopes the money can be used to buy a horse. In Istanbul, Hüseyin buys a vegetable cart and the two attempt to sell vegetables on the street. Because Hüseyin doesn't have a licence to sell vegetables, the two are constantly on the look out for cops, and eventually Hüseyin has a run in with the law and loses his cart, although he himself escapes. Hüseyin tries various other methods to get money but they all prove fruitless. Finally, he steals a cart and takes it to the market place. All he has to sell is a single flower, but before he call sell it he his attacked and accidentally killed by the carts owner. Ferhat is sent home.

After watching "The Horse", anyone who has seen Vittorio De Sica's "The Bicycle Thief" (1947) will notice the similarities between the two. In both films we have a poverty stricken father and son spending a soul-crushing week in the big city. The father's source of income (bike/cart) is taken away. The father ends up stealing another one, and is caught. In both films, the stress of the situation causes the father to beat the son over a minor argument. Afterwards, both fathers feel tremendous guilt. I have no proof that Ozgenturk saw "The Bicycle Thief", but "The Horse" could almost be considered a re-make of De Sica's film. Nevertheless, "The Horse" is a strong, important work in it's own right, that stands on its own.

Structurally, "The Horse" is quite striking. The first hour is presented in a realistic tone, and as the film begins (with a depiction of Hüseyin's fellow villagers performing a play), we think we might be about to watch a documentary. However, at the halfway mark, Hüseyin has a dream in which he sees himself lying in a coffin, and the film starts to take a more surreal tone. One could see how this shift in tones might jeopardize the films effectiveness, but in The Horse, it works, as we how the tone reflects Hüseyin's increasingly desperate situation. The dream sequences themselves are brief and never heavy handed. They are shot with the same realistic tone as the rest of the film, which only increases their haunting quality, as we see Hüseyin's thoughts (Ferhat taking on the persona of various men who have publicly humiliated Hüseyin) and dreams (the coffin) shot in a matter-of-fact style.

Writing about films can be frustrating when not much is known about the contexts surrounding a particular movie. On the back of the video box for "The Horse", it is written that Ozgenturk was thrown in prison for making the film. I can understand why the government would hate this film. It does after all harshly criticize, among other things, police brutality, the inefficiency of the state run school system, and the inability of the government to solve its poverty problem. I also don't doubt that Ozgenturk was jailed after the movie was made. I am only sceptical that the only reason the government gave for jailing Ozgenturk was that they did not like his film. I would love to know more about what happened to Ozgenturk after this film (I know he made a few more). I just don't know where to look.