A Different Approach to Love by Haneke: Amour

“I give the spectator the possibility of participating. The audience completes the film by thinking about it; those who watch must not be just consumers ingesting spoon-fed images.”
This quote by Haneke makes it clear why there are lots of debates about his last movie, Amour. Michael Haneke is a director who does not want to make the audience stay out of his movies. On the contrary, he puts the audience in the centre of his movies. Then, he provokes us by showing the images which are both shocking and touching. By doing this, he makes his own style which is very unique and effective. 

His last movie Amour perfectly fits Haneke’s movie codes. He lets us in a house and does not let us out. We watch the characters’ suffering, happiness, and their emotions in the most comfortable place for them: their own house. There, we are just like guests of a couple, who are rather old, but very happy until the female character, Anne, has an attack and paralyses.
From this point, both characters’ test begins. Georges, Anne’s husband, wants to take care of Anne although their daughter insists that her mother should need a professional care. Haneke does not give answers to his audience. On the contrary, he makes us think about true meaning of love. In a totally different perspective, behaviour of some characters can be considered as selfish in the movie. That’s why every single people who watch this movie will have different points of view.
The most powerful part of this movie is the actors and actresses who have starring roles. Emmanuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignant’s performance are to perfection. There is a perfect harmony between them, which can be observed form the beginning till the end. While watching, you just simply forget that they are acting. In my opinion, this also shows that Haneke knows how to impress his audience.
Overall, Amour is one of the best of 2012. It has won lots of awards and it is nominated five Oscars including “Best Motion Picture of the Year.” Although Haneke says that he does not make his films to win awards, Amour certainly deserves it all. However, I should warn you about one point: Amour is not a soft movie to watch (especially it is not like the movies which claim that they are about “love”). It is slow, touching and sometimes irritating like all of the movies by Haneke. If you want to be a guest to Haneke’s world, you should be prepared for it.                
Kaan Akin (ELIT II)


The Latest Issue of Inkpot Released

Inkpot Issue IV has been in print since December 2012. In this issue you may read essays on “The British Empire and Literature,” film reviews and translations.  “The Rise of Englishness” is the title of the article written by Yeşim Kurşunlu (ELIT IV). Yudum Alak (ELIT III) published her essay, entitled “I am not a Guest Here.”   “This is not the End of the Book” is the title of an essay by İpek Çakaloz (ELIT III).
Film Reviews are written by Yeşim Kurşunlu (ELIT IV), Gizem Irmak Yolcu (ELIT III), and Kaan Necati Batur (ELIT II), who wrote on Lawrence of Arabia, Sherlock Holmes and Braveheart respectively. Also, there are translations from several writings by two outstanding authors Hanif Kureishi and Amy Bloom. Ayşe Aydın (ELIT II) translated Girl- Kadın Olmak, İpek Çakaloz (ELIT III) and Cansu Begüm Erkoç (ELIT III) translated Midnight All Day- Tüm Gün Gece, Pınar Esma Polat (ELIT II) translated Four Blue Chairs- Dört Mavi Sandalye, and Ahmet Can Vargün (ELIT III) translated When The Year Grows Old- Yıl Yaşlanınca.
            Inkpot is a journal designed, composed, edited and transmitted to the readers by ELIT students. Bora Arga (ELIT II) and Ceren Turan (CS IV) worked on the cover, Sinem Oralli (ELIT 2011 Graduate) and Meryem Tugba Peksen (ELIT III) edited the writings, Dilara Senturk (ELIT II), Ozkan Akkaya (ELIT III), Bora Arga (ELIT II), and Ilayda Barbaros (ELIT II) edited the translations. Betul Erdem (ELIT IV) compiled and redacted all the material.
            You may send an email to Meryem Tugba Peksen (peksen@ug.bilkent.edu.tr) to purchase Inkpot Issue IV.


Director’s Note: The Salvation of Stephen Dedalus

Although I’ve tried to write Irish patterns of speech into the play, none of the actors have been directed to attempt Irish accents. The most any of us has attempted is a kind of ‘neutral’ (that is, non-regional) British accent – with the exception of Patrick Hart, who has no need to attempt a British accent, having been bred to it. In my direction, I have insistently pushed for clear enunciation and appropriately placed emphases in delivery. The goal for the actors is to inhabit the language, as much as possible, to make the English language an effective vehicle for expression, rather than an impediment. For the major roles, I have portrayed my understanding of the characters to the actors and urged them to identify with the characters. But for the most part I have concentrated on the immediate demands of the dramatic situations and the pertinent character motivations, giving directions like ‘You must get in front of him quickly. Otherwise, he will simply walk away.’ or ‘Your speech is all about names. In your delivery, every name must be emphasized.’

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Don Randall

From the Author of The Salvation of Stephen Dedalus

In an early scene of the play, the nasty Prefect of Studies recalls the old saying, ‘The Devil finds work for idle hands.’ But I here declare that the Devil did not provide the main impetus for my writing. Last spring I reread, for the first time in more than thirty years, Joyce’s Portrait, and was reminded of the terrible power of the sermons on hell and eternity – the sermons that so horrify the young Stephen Dedalus. Oh dear God! thought I – how wonderful ’twould be to perform those sermons on stage! And almost in the same moment, I recalled that my Department currently has some very capable students, some of whom had performed very impressively in Blood Wedding. I proposed the idea of a play based on Joyce’s novel to a few students I was already considering for key roles. They seemed keen. Melih Kalender, especially, seemed prepared to make a firm commitment to the project. I started in on the writing, and only upon the conclusion of my first draught did I recognize a constitutive flaw in my project: I, working in a Department – and, indeed, in a Faculty – dominated by women, had produced a play requiring a good number of male actors – and very few female actors. Just as the time for casting and first rehearsals was bearing down upon me, my teaching of Shakespeare came to my rescue: in Shakespeare’s theatre, boys played all female roles; in my play, young women would play all (or most) of the schoolboy roles.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Don Randall