The head-spinning strangeness of the Turkish… | Little White Lies

The head-spin­ning strange­ness of the Turk­ish Exor­cist remake

24 Oct 2017

Words by Josie Finlay

Image shows a black and white close-up portrait of a woman with curly hair, smiling widely at the camera.
Image shows a black and white close-up portrait of a woman with curly hair, smiling widely at the camera.
This scene-for-scene redo of William Friedkin’s hor­ror clas­sic has to be seen to be believed.

It’s The Exor­cist, but not as you know it. Regan, deep in the throes of satan­ic pos­ses­sion, is begin­ning to bear more than a pass­ing resem­blance to Shrek. She’s growl­ing like a calv­ing cow and the demon­ic vom­it she’s spit­ting is made of… blue ketchup?

Let me explain. Regan is not Regan, she’s Gul, and this isn’t The Exor­cist – it’s Sey­tan, Turk­ish direc­tor Meytin Erksan’s scene-for-scene remake of William Friedkin’s 1974 mas­ter­work. Spawned the same year as its Amer­i­can prog­en­i­tor, Sey­tan is a prod­uct of the copy­right law-lite, bud­get-liter Yesil­cam era of Turk­ish cin­e­ma, which saw the cre­ation of hun­dreds of Hol­ly­wood rip-offs, adapt­ed for a Turk­ish audi­ence. These remakes, which run the gamut of block­busters includ­ing ET, Star Wars and Jaws, often con­sist of a heady mix­ture of parts direct­ly spliced from their orig­i­nals, and oth­er parts cob­bled togeth­er using what­ev­er the film­mak­ers could find in their gar­den sheds.

Watch­ing Sey­tan is akin to watch­ing a Great British Bake Off tech­ni­cal chal­lenge, where the con­tes­tants are tasked with recre­at­ing some form of com­plex bake’ with lim­it­ed resources, instruc­tions and time. Though rough-hewn, the result­ing pieces have their own sense of charm, with their warped struc­tures or overzeal­ous cream inser­tion. Erksan’s con­fec­tion has a sim­i­lar feel­ing of slap­dash cre­ativ­i­ty. It’s fab­u­lous in its own way; a kitsch revamp of the slick orig­i­nal cre­at­ed using (Paul) Hollywood’s well-oiled KitchenAid.

Gaudi­er, cheap­er and sim­pler than Friedkin’s sym­bol­i­cal­ly loaded work, Erksan’s film deals with the same essen­tial idea: how the frame­work of a ratio­nal 20th cen­tu­ry mid­dle-class elite, estranged from reli­gion and super­sti­tion, is shak­en when faced with the arrival of a triple-joint­ed, foul-mouthed demon­ic force host­ed grotesque­ly in the body of a teenage girl. But the dev­il that con­fronts the unlucky Turk­ish cast has a face of jaun­diced put­ty, bod­i­ly secre­tions made of thick and var­ied condi­ments, and a slow, creaky head­spin that needs a chi­ro­prac­tor more than an exorcist.

Sey­tan is not a scary film – there are far too many dis­trac­tions for that. Along with the low bud­get spe­cial effects, there’s the mak­ers’ pen­chant for absurd accou­trements includ­ing, but not lim­it­ed to: fre­quent extreme fast zooms, very avant-garde angles and mak­ing the absolute most of lax copy­right laws by wedg­ing in a scratchy record­ing of Tubu­lar Bells’ every two min­utes. The view­ing expe­ri­ence isn’t helped by the alarm­ing­ly poor state of the only avail­able copy.

First­ly, the video qual­i­ty sug­gests that the reels were res­cued from the bot­tom of a bin the day before bin day. Also, the per­son sad­dled with the job of sub­ti­tling seems to be going through a minor cri­sis, waver­ing between impa­tience, bore­dom and embar­rass­ment, anno­tat­ing the screen­play with sar­don­ic smi­ley emoti­cons, notes like check google’, and, when their task is final­ly com­plete, The End (*at last)’.

It’s unsur­pris­ing that Seytan’s screen­play – adapt­ed into Turk­ish, vet­ted by cen­sors, then trans­lat­ed back into ques­tion­able Eng­lish for those accursèd sub­ti­tles – doesn’t quite have the same effect as that of Friedkin’s orig­i­nal. One par­tic­u­lar ele­ment that goes astray is the deli­cious­ly sweary dis­po­si­tion of the dev­il in The Exor­cist, and the jar­ring expe­ri­ence of see­ing a young teenage girl ven­tril­o­quise bru­tal obscen­i­ties such as, Stick your cock up her ass, you moth­er­fuck­ing worth­less cock­suck­er!” Gul’s out­bursts in Sey­tan don’t have this vis­cer­al, stom­ach-churn­ing qual­i­ty. This is because they con­sist of phras­es like, Here is the arro­gant crock, who calls me dev­il!” A line per­haps bet­ter suit­ed to a duel-fight­ing rogue in an 18th cen­tu­ry cos­tume drama.

Aes­thet­ic dif­fer­ences aside, reli­gion is the most obvi­ous dis­par­i­ty between the two pièces de pos­ses­sions. Stripped of The Exorcist’s Catholi­cism, Sey­tan is dri­ven by a Mus­lim-tinged sec­u­lar­ism that is actu­al­ly con­cerned more with acad­e­mia than reli­gion – until the actu­al exor­cism, when the Quran is brought in and God sum­moned to expel the dev­il. Instead of a dis­il­lu­sioned young Catholic priest in a grow­ing­ly faith­less world, the Father Kar­ras fig­ure is Tugrul Bilge, a psy­chol­o­gist and author of an obscure aca­d­e­m­ic vol­ume about exor­cism – the books that are read by no one”, his uncle grum­bles euphemisti­cal­ly. The film­mak­ers’ nav­i­ga­tion of the de-Catholi­cism issue is slight­ly less nim­ble in the case of the Let Jesus fuck you!’ mas­tur­ba­tion scene, when Gul’s cho­sen instru­ment of fer­vent self-plea­sure/fla­gel­la­tion is revealed to be…a let­ter opener.

Per­haps Seytan’s grav­i­tas is com­pro­mised by the replace­ment of The Exorcist’s cru­ci­fix with a piece of sta­tionery, and the sub­sti­tu­tion of Kar­ras with lay­man Tugrul Bilge in a plain ol’ suit. But Sey­tan isn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly angling for the weighty sym­bol­ism of Friedkin’s work. With­out the heavy iconog­ra­phy seen in The Exor­cist, the film still suc­cinct­ly artic­u­lates a sense of guilt towards its con­tem­po­rary society’s wan­ing inter­est in faith and organ­ised reli­gion. Seytan’s sim­pler treat­ment dis­tils the issues in The Exor­cist down to their ulti­mate moral crux – the pow­er of pure faith in the bat­tle between good and evil.

If you look behind the infer­nal trashi­ness of Sey­tan you’ll find trea­sure. You’ll also find more trash, but that’s what’s tru­ly spe­cial about the film: its cheer­ful schlock, price­less screen­play and sheer resource­ful­ness in the face of the cheap­est sup­plies in the props box.

You might like