Talking to... Sinan Taner

“1:10” was screened at the renowned Short Film Festival in Clermont-Ferrand and subsequently in Istanbul, San Francisco, Busan and Lisbon, among other locations. How does it feel to have your film screened at so many festivals?

I’m very happy that I get to present it in so many different countries. But honestly, I didn’t think this story would travel around the world, because it’s about a very specific event from my own childhood. So I’m all the more delighted that the story can be transferred to other cultures, especially since it’s also about the clash of different cultures.

Have you travelled a lot with the film?

I’ve tried to go to as many festivals as possible. Because of that, I’ve seen a lot of short films from all over the world in the last few months. And the interactions with people have been very inspiring.

Does the audience react differently to the humour in your film, or do viewers always find the same things funny?

Every screening is different. It’s the discussions and feedback afterwards that I find most interesting. I’ve noticed that certain details are sometimes completely lost and sometimes understood very precisely. For example, what is perceived as funny in Switzerland, Germany or Turkey is taken more seriously and tragically in France, Belgium or South Korea. Certain scenes also work very differently in different places. That was very fascinating to see.

“1:10” is like a hidden object picture shown from above that you keep diving into. Was the idea of filming from a bird’s eye view clear from the beginning?

I wrote the script with this idea in mind. The characters were meant to pursue their individual tasks and problems without being aware of the overarching plot of the narrative. It was to be left up to the viewers to discover the absurdity and often senselessness of the events. We repeatedly zoomed in on individual characters to follow them more closely but then deliberately retreated. My aim was to highlight the interplay between the individual and the collective. The focus was on the impact of certain actions of individuals on society and the lack of understanding for other people’s perspectives. This is also symbolised by the title 1:10. The number “10” represents the collective society as a whole, whereas “1” stands for the individual who is a part of this structure and also searching for their place in it.

Were there any particular challenges during filming?

Together with DOP Manuel Karel Seiler, we planned the shots and sequences quite precisely. However, we couldn’t predict everything exactly, as there were sometimes up to 150 people in front of the camera. This made it practically impossible to rehearse with the extras before filming. So during filming, we had to react quickly to changing spaces and make adjustments with many people in front of the camera. And communication with Manuel wasn’t always easy either, because he was on a hoist about 15 metres high in the schoolyard while we were filming.

How did you manage to link all the many individual stories into one narrative without losing the thread?

The main character of the film is the collective, not a single individual. It was very important to me to focus on society as a whole and to see the individual characters within this construct. The aim was to use details and many small stories to depict a whole. This had a major influence on the entire narrative. What often interests me most about stories themselves are the subtle nuances or the remarks made by individual characters, which, in my opinion, often reveal much more than an overarching plot.

Many of the individual stories within the film came about because of the way I wrote the script. For example, I had long conversations with my father about the real event and recorded them. Most of the dialogue is based on my own memories or transcribed audio recordings.

For me, there were two main storylines that are reflected in the themes they explore: on the one hand, the conflict between the two sons, which spills over to their fathers and later to all the adults; and on the other hand, the conflict between the customer and the employee, which affects the children. Both stories are linked by a chain reaction that ultimately affects everyone on site and leads to a kind of systematic collapse of social norms.

Can you share with us any mishaps during filming?

Fortunately, there were no major mishaps, but there was one incident that turned out to be a lucky coincidence. While shooting the key scene, in which the two fathers argue, there were two kids in the schoolyard who deliberately kept riding their e-scooters into the shot, disrupting the films so much that we had to cut several takes. Then we had the idea of incorporating them as a disruptive factor, and in the edit it turned out that they actually underscored the chaotic tone of the scene very well.

Are you working on any new film projects?

I’m currently in post-production on a feature-length documentary film about various people in a retirement home that we followed for four years until their deaths. Similar to 1:10, the film deals with the themes of identity, social constructs and conflicts in a microcosm. I was especially interested in the question of how older people interact with each other in this complex social structure and how belonging plays a role in it.

Two more short films are also in post-production. I have also started writing a feature film project that examines different visions of the future of society.

What are you hoping to gain from participating in Future Frames?

I am really looking forward to seeing the other filmmakers’ films. I always find it very inspiring to exchange ideas with other filmmakers and realise that many of us have similar experiences. I hope to have interesting conversations, gain new ideas and perhaps even make some initial contacts for future projects.