The empire strikes back
25/5/12 18:39![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luvdovz.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsHere's a trailer to the movie Fetih 1453, which has become a symbol of the renewed interest of the Turkish public to its glorious Ottoman past. But there's much more to that movie than mere commercial interest.
[Error: unknown template video]
The epic battle scenes, the massive visual effects and the sumptuous costumes make it look like Troy. The budget is $17 million which makes it the biggest production in the history of Turkish cinema. But this investment was quickly repaid manifold due to the mass mania it caused among the public. Fatih 1453 means "Conquest 1453", and that's exactly what Faruk Aksoy is talking about: the capture of Constantinople by the Ottomans under Mehmet II. The battle that ended the Eastern Roman Empire.
No surprise, the reactions have been polarized. One side says this is a nice historic work whose ambition is to rival the grand Western commercial cinema blockbusters (Troy, Gladiator, Nomad). Others say it's neo-imperial propaganda, pure and simple, and in line with the recently resurrected self-image of Turkey as a heir to a great power, a meme that's being silently promoted by the ruling "moderate Islamists" in Turkey.
One thing is for sure. Fetih 1453 is proof for the revival of the Turks' interest in their glorious Ottoman past. Or, like the Zaman newspaper wrote in its review, "Turks are feeling imperial again". Le Figaro wrote something along the same lines: "More than five centuries after the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans, the Turks rushed to movie theaters to relive this highly symbolic battle fought by their ancestors". The big enthusiasm about this epic story is a clear indication of the new wave of Ottomanization in the country in recent times. "Denigrated by the Republic of Turkey, founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1923, ... the Ottoman Empire is back in fashion.", Le Figaro concludes.
Fetih 1453 marks the culmination of a recent tendency towards creating a romantic aura around Ottomanism. Turkey is now looking with different eyes at its Ottoman past, which for years had been neglected by Atatürk and his followers, the protectors of the secularist regime. Most of the comments under the Youtube trailer are very telling:
"Modern day Turks are a disgrace to the great Ottomans; because they left Jihad and converted to secularis[m]; they fight Islam alongside the kaffirs of NATO; what good can come out of them to the Islamic ummah? Now they wish to join the broken EU when 80 years back they were the leaders of the world because of Islam; soon the Brotherhood shall restore the khilafah and the HQ this time will be in Egypt".
There are two reasons for this change of moods. The first one is related to foreign policy. After a decade of economic progress and increasing regional influence, Turkey is asserting its geopolitical role and meanwhile turning to its predecessors for inspiration. This is in unison with Erdogan's policy of increasing Turkey's influence in the Muslim world and promoting moderate Islam as an alternative to Western democracy. Turning away from the EU where Turkey had been trying to go for decades, it's re-discovering the old traces of its huge influence in the Middle East and is trying to reinforce it.
If on the Balkans and in Europe the Ottoman Empire is seen as a negative symbol, meanwhile in the Arab world it's just the opposite. With its thriving economy and balancing political role, Turkey is largely seen as a model to emulate throughout the Middle East. It's natural that the stronger it becomes, the more seriously it'll be perceived by the surrounding nations. And of course that's exactly what Erdogan is working for, and this movie comes very timely. Rumors among the Turkish press say that he personally reviewed the premiere and approved it very much. And that increases the concerns of his critics that his government is using neo-Ottomanism as an instrument for its foreign policy.
Turkey's cultural impact on the surrounding cultures has been immense in recent years, coupled with its position of an economic juggernaut in the region. Turkish movies are flooding the TVs across the Middle East and the Balkans; Turkish trade is traversing all highways and providing a vital pinch of vibrant motion from East to West. And it's no surprise that many of these nations are already seeing Turkish influence as an inevitable part of their own societies. And Erdogan knows this, and will be trying to exploit it for his country's interests in the most skillful way possible.
The second reason for the change is the change in domestic policy. In fact the Turkish authorities refer to Ottomanism directly very rarely. But on the other hand, we see that some of them often like making indirect allusions to the Ottoman Empire. Some of the radical reforms made in the early years of the Turkish Republic are not liked by the current rulers, and they want to repeal some elements of the Kemalist revolution, including its cultural aspects. And the reversion to Ottomanism is to a great extent based on this motive for domestic consumption.
Aside from the attempts of exerting cultural influence in the region, many Turks are now re-discovering their own history for themselves. The Magnificent Century is a TV soap opera about the life of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent, and it's become a huge hit, and not just in Turkey. And the national museum dedicated to the siege of Constantinople has attracted over a million visitors since its inauguration three years ago.
Granted, in every post-imperial society there's been a craving for the glorious past. It's normal to expect that to be valid for Turkey as well. And that's not necessarily something bad. Right now this craving is still very limited, due to the official ideology of secularism and the fact that the Ottoman Empire is still represented in the history schoolbooks as "Europe's ill patient" (a meme as old as the 19th century). That's why I'd rather look at the success of Fatih 1453 mostly as a commercial success, without belittling its cultural impact.
But of course, apart from jubilant enthusiasm, Fetih 1453 also causes lots of criticism. In a Zaman analysis, a warning is being made that the movie panders to "extreme nationalism" and old Turkish stereotypes of their Christian neighbours. "As we get angry whenever we see Oriental stereotypes about the East in the Western movies, we should be at least honest enough to not do the same mistake", Zaman says. Indeed, this movie could fuel the paranoia of those who see in the West only inhospitality and hostility, while pumping up their national sense of pride and superiority.
Another Turkish analyst, Hüseyin Gülerce thinks differently. He says that although 500 years have passed since the capture of Constantinople, people still feel love, respect and admiration for that distant period in history. "The world's most splendid city became ours at the price of the lives of many others. Unfortunately in this country the Sultans have been systematically slandered and smeared, especially in the early years of the Republic". He believes the purpose of this smear campaign was to encourage and strengthen the new secularist regime. That's why the glorious past had been ignored, erased, and mocked, denigrating the national pride of the Turkish people, while the alien Western values were being imposed upon it, thus betraying its core values. "But despite all the intense efforts, they could not erase the love and gratitude to our past. Today we have started a movement to become "us" again by returning to our roots. We are witnessing an unprecedented excitement from the resurrection of our past", he concludes.
His words are confirmed by the thousands of positive reviews to the movie across the Turkish forums. For example one user wrote (rough translation): "I'm so proud with this movie. It's the movie I had been waiting for all my life. As I watch, I'm feeling proud with my Turkey". Another user says: "The so-called reformists of 1923 and even before that have done their best to separate us not just from our past, but to isolate our art and culture, with the purpose of creating a weak culture that would be conveniently servile to the foreigners". These and other comments pretty much sum up the dominant sentiments floating around the Turkish public these days. These are thoughts that almost no one dared to voice loud until a decade ago.
As in most other historic epic movies, the experts were soon ready with a list of historic inaccuracies. For example the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI is shown as a man of leisure and pleasure, while in reality he had vowed for celibacy and was a rather rough character. Also the fact that far more non-Ottomans had fought on the side of the Sultan than those who were defending the walls of Constantinople, is completely omitted (long story). Also the movie presents the city in its full glory, omitting the fact that it had only been a pale shadow of its self ever since the Crusaders sacked it in 1204.
But the far more interesting thing is the duality that the Turkish crew seems to display. On one side, there's the authoritarian aspiration for power of the young Sultan. But on the other side, there's an attempt for balance in a demonstration of tolerance. That's exactly the purpose of the closing scene, where Mehmet II enters the Hagia Sophia cathedral with a blonde child in his arms, and says, "Worry not, people of Constantinople! You can practice your religion as you please". But everyone who knows a thing or two about history would recall that the life of Christians in the Ottoman Empire was never an easy and cloudless affair. Meanwhile, one of the scenes emphasizes on how the Christian warriors are slaugtering innocent women and children.
This and similar discrepancies have prompted the German Christian association Via Dolorosa to call for boycotting the movie (which is also to be aired across Germany, where 1.7 million ethnic Turks and another 1.3 million Germans of Turkish ancestry live today). "There's no reason for Turkey to celebrate this event. Instead, it should feel ashamed for the blatant disregard of human rights and the continuous persecution of Christians", the association wrote in a statement.
But not all opinions are so extreme. Some believe the movie actually represents the Byzantines in a somewhat positive light. They're depicted as brave and patriotic as much as the Ottomans, which could be a surprise if you look from a certain angle. For instance, towards the end of the movie the Byzantine emperor chooses to die with honor, rather than fleeing for his life. The Byzantines are depicted as devout Christians in quite a positive way. It's just that there can be only one Emperor in Constantinople, and from the Ottoman POV it better be Mehmet and not Constantine.
Whichever way this argument ends, one thing is for sure. Today, Turkey's history is being revered more than ever. That's why the crew of Fetih 1453 is already planning a second epic movie that'll surely cause as much buzz, if not even more. It'll be about the Battle of Galipoli, where Kemal Atatürk defeated the British. I can see from now a few feathers being ruffled across the English Channel as well.
[Error: unknown template video]
The epic battle scenes, the massive visual effects and the sumptuous costumes make it look like Troy. The budget is $17 million which makes it the biggest production in the history of Turkish cinema. But this investment was quickly repaid manifold due to the mass mania it caused among the public. Fatih 1453 means "Conquest 1453", and that's exactly what Faruk Aksoy is talking about: the capture of Constantinople by the Ottomans under Mehmet II. The battle that ended the Eastern Roman Empire.
No surprise, the reactions have been polarized. One side says this is a nice historic work whose ambition is to rival the grand Western commercial cinema blockbusters (Troy, Gladiator, Nomad). Others say it's neo-imperial propaganda, pure and simple, and in line with the recently resurrected self-image of Turkey as a heir to a great power, a meme that's being silently promoted by the ruling "moderate Islamists" in Turkey.
One thing is for sure. Fetih 1453 is proof for the revival of the Turks' interest in their glorious Ottoman past. Or, like the Zaman newspaper wrote in its review, "Turks are feeling imperial again". Le Figaro wrote something along the same lines: "More than five centuries after the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans, the Turks rushed to movie theaters to relive this highly symbolic battle fought by their ancestors". The big enthusiasm about this epic story is a clear indication of the new wave of Ottomanization in the country in recent times. "Denigrated by the Republic of Turkey, founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1923, ... the Ottoman Empire is back in fashion.", Le Figaro concludes.
Fetih 1453 marks the culmination of a recent tendency towards creating a romantic aura around Ottomanism. Turkey is now looking with different eyes at its Ottoman past, which for years had been neglected by Atatürk and his followers, the protectors of the secularist regime. Most of the comments under the Youtube trailer are very telling:
"Modern day Turks are a disgrace to the great Ottomans; because they left Jihad and converted to secularis[m]; they fight Islam alongside the kaffirs of NATO; what good can come out of them to the Islamic ummah? Now they wish to join the broken EU when 80 years back they were the leaders of the world because of Islam; soon the Brotherhood shall restore the khilafah and the HQ this time will be in Egypt".
There are two reasons for this change of moods. The first one is related to foreign policy. After a decade of economic progress and increasing regional influence, Turkey is asserting its geopolitical role and meanwhile turning to its predecessors for inspiration. This is in unison with Erdogan's policy of increasing Turkey's influence in the Muslim world and promoting moderate Islam as an alternative to Western democracy. Turning away from the EU where Turkey had been trying to go for decades, it's re-discovering the old traces of its huge influence in the Middle East and is trying to reinforce it.
If on the Balkans and in Europe the Ottoman Empire is seen as a negative symbol, meanwhile in the Arab world it's just the opposite. With its thriving economy and balancing political role, Turkey is largely seen as a model to emulate throughout the Middle East. It's natural that the stronger it becomes, the more seriously it'll be perceived by the surrounding nations. And of course that's exactly what Erdogan is working for, and this movie comes very timely. Rumors among the Turkish press say that he personally reviewed the premiere and approved it very much. And that increases the concerns of his critics that his government is using neo-Ottomanism as an instrument for its foreign policy.
Turkey's cultural impact on the surrounding cultures has been immense in recent years, coupled with its position of an economic juggernaut in the region. Turkish movies are flooding the TVs across the Middle East and the Balkans; Turkish trade is traversing all highways and providing a vital pinch of vibrant motion from East to West. And it's no surprise that many of these nations are already seeing Turkish influence as an inevitable part of their own societies. And Erdogan knows this, and will be trying to exploit it for his country's interests in the most skillful way possible.
The second reason for the change is the change in domestic policy. In fact the Turkish authorities refer to Ottomanism directly very rarely. But on the other hand, we see that some of them often like making indirect allusions to the Ottoman Empire. Some of the radical reforms made in the early years of the Turkish Republic are not liked by the current rulers, and they want to repeal some elements of the Kemalist revolution, including its cultural aspects. And the reversion to Ottomanism is to a great extent based on this motive for domestic consumption.
Aside from the attempts of exerting cultural influence in the region, many Turks are now re-discovering their own history for themselves. The Magnificent Century is a TV soap opera about the life of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent, and it's become a huge hit, and not just in Turkey. And the national museum dedicated to the siege of Constantinople has attracted over a million visitors since its inauguration three years ago.
Granted, in every post-imperial society there's been a craving for the glorious past. It's normal to expect that to be valid for Turkey as well. And that's not necessarily something bad. Right now this craving is still very limited, due to the official ideology of secularism and the fact that the Ottoman Empire is still represented in the history schoolbooks as "Europe's ill patient" (a meme as old as the 19th century). That's why I'd rather look at the success of Fatih 1453 mostly as a commercial success, without belittling its cultural impact.
But of course, apart from jubilant enthusiasm, Fetih 1453 also causes lots of criticism. In a Zaman analysis, a warning is being made that the movie panders to "extreme nationalism" and old Turkish stereotypes of their Christian neighbours. "As we get angry whenever we see Oriental stereotypes about the East in the Western movies, we should be at least honest enough to not do the same mistake", Zaman says. Indeed, this movie could fuel the paranoia of those who see in the West only inhospitality and hostility, while pumping up their national sense of pride and superiority.
Another Turkish analyst, Hüseyin Gülerce thinks differently. He says that although 500 years have passed since the capture of Constantinople, people still feel love, respect and admiration for that distant period in history. "The world's most splendid city became ours at the price of the lives of many others. Unfortunately in this country the Sultans have been systematically slandered and smeared, especially in the early years of the Republic". He believes the purpose of this smear campaign was to encourage and strengthen the new secularist regime. That's why the glorious past had been ignored, erased, and mocked, denigrating the national pride of the Turkish people, while the alien Western values were being imposed upon it, thus betraying its core values. "But despite all the intense efforts, they could not erase the love and gratitude to our past. Today we have started a movement to become "us" again by returning to our roots. We are witnessing an unprecedented excitement from the resurrection of our past", he concludes.
His words are confirmed by the thousands of positive reviews to the movie across the Turkish forums. For example one user wrote (rough translation): "I'm so proud with this movie. It's the movie I had been waiting for all my life. As I watch, I'm feeling proud with my Turkey". Another user says: "The so-called reformists of 1923 and even before that have done their best to separate us not just from our past, but to isolate our art and culture, with the purpose of creating a weak culture that would be conveniently servile to the foreigners". These and other comments pretty much sum up the dominant sentiments floating around the Turkish public these days. These are thoughts that almost no one dared to voice loud until a decade ago.
As in most other historic epic movies, the experts were soon ready with a list of historic inaccuracies. For example the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI is shown as a man of leisure and pleasure, while in reality he had vowed for celibacy and was a rather rough character. Also the fact that far more non-Ottomans had fought on the side of the Sultan than those who were defending the walls of Constantinople, is completely omitted (long story). Also the movie presents the city in its full glory, omitting the fact that it had only been a pale shadow of its self ever since the Crusaders sacked it in 1204.
But the far more interesting thing is the duality that the Turkish crew seems to display. On one side, there's the authoritarian aspiration for power of the young Sultan. But on the other side, there's an attempt for balance in a demonstration of tolerance. That's exactly the purpose of the closing scene, where Mehmet II enters the Hagia Sophia cathedral with a blonde child in his arms, and says, "Worry not, people of Constantinople! You can practice your religion as you please". But everyone who knows a thing or two about history would recall that the life of Christians in the Ottoman Empire was never an easy and cloudless affair. Meanwhile, one of the scenes emphasizes on how the Christian warriors are slaugtering innocent women and children.
This and similar discrepancies have prompted the German Christian association Via Dolorosa to call for boycotting the movie (which is also to be aired across Germany, where 1.7 million ethnic Turks and another 1.3 million Germans of Turkish ancestry live today). "There's no reason for Turkey to celebrate this event. Instead, it should feel ashamed for the blatant disregard of human rights and the continuous persecution of Christians", the association wrote in a statement.
But not all opinions are so extreme. Some believe the movie actually represents the Byzantines in a somewhat positive light. They're depicted as brave and patriotic as much as the Ottomans, which could be a surprise if you look from a certain angle. For instance, towards the end of the movie the Byzantine emperor chooses to die with honor, rather than fleeing for his life. The Byzantines are depicted as devout Christians in quite a positive way. It's just that there can be only one Emperor in Constantinople, and from the Ottoman POV it better be Mehmet and not Constantine.
Whichever way this argument ends, one thing is for sure. Today, Turkey's history is being revered more than ever. That's why the crew of Fetih 1453 is already planning a second epic movie that'll surely cause as much buzz, if not even more. It'll be about the Battle of Galipoli, where Kemal Atatürk defeated the British. I can see from now a few feathers being ruffled across the English Channel as well.
(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 17:19 (UTC)İkinci Viyana Kuşatması, 1529
İnebahtı, 1571
İkinci Viyana Kuşatması, 1683
Honestly, if you expect historical accuracy in any movie, you are really searching for a phantom. That is what history books are for. Oh, wait... lol. The last bit about "have no fear," is pretty laughable, but we've seen so much worse I have trouble getting very worked up. Critics praised the "realism" of Braveheart despite the fact that historians have called it the most inaccurate historical movie ever made.
(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 17:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 17:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 17:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 18:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 22:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 20:03 (UTC)For instance Enemy at the Gates and The Longest Day are good movies, but historically accurate? Hell, no.
(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 18:18 (UTC)Hagia Sophia was the place where thousands of people hid during the siege, and once Mehmed was inside the city he massacred everybody in the church. Then he announced that this would be his central mosque, the jewel in his crown.
(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 18:22 (UTC)The kids and their parents can be seen in this photo here (warning: NSFW (http://www.bg-history.info/i/2649.jpg)).
(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 19:57 (UTC)http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/women.html
(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 19:52 (UTC)However if the USA can make movies presenting idiotic failed rebellions for the purpose of keeping humans as property and a targeted mixture of ill-faith and extermination of its natives, as a citizen of the USA I can hardly begrudge Turkey claiming the legacy of a Ghazi who'd loathe what modern Turkey is in no small part for having a cosmpolitan vision, not the narrower one of Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer ala Ataturk.
(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 20:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 20:09 (UTC)But then, we Balkanites enjoy drawing pleasure from our own pain.
(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 20:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 21:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/5/12 20:53 (UTC)It would be incredible for background noise while I take my CK II holiday next week.
(no subject)
Date: 26/5/12 03:30 (UTC)Of course, in a perfect world, directors would make conscientious and historically accurate, yet riveting and entertaining movies about important historical events, but you can't have everything. People will write about the historical inaccuracies, just like they do with every other movie, they'll get filed away, and maybe some people will read them and learn something. Every one else will probably get over it. In the meantime, battle scenes are fun.
(no subject)
Date: 26/5/12 13:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/5/12 18:24 (UTC)