New Turkish Cinema

8/13/2019 New Turkish Cinema

1/34


2/34

NEW TURKISH CINEMA

BELONGING, IDENTITY

AND MEMORY

Asuman Suner


3/34

Published in 2010 by I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd6 Salem Road, London W2 4BU175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010www.ibtauris.com

Distributed in the United States and Canada Exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan,175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010

Copyright 2010 Asuman Suner

The right of Asuman Suner to be identified as the author of this work has been assertedby her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or any part thereof,may not be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, inany form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,without the prior written permission of the publisher.

ISBN 978 1 84511 949 2 (HB) 978 1 84511 950 8 (PB)

A full CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryA full CIP record is available from the Library of Congress

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: available

Typeset by JCS Publishing Services Ltd, www.jcs-publishing.co.uk

Printed and bound in India by Thomson Press India Ltd


4/34

vii

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations ixAcknowledgments xiIntroduction: New Turkish Cinema in Historical

Perspective 1

1 Popular Nostalgia Films 252 New Political Films 51

3 The Cinema of Nuri Bilge Ceylan 774 The Cinema of Zeki Demirkubuz 1135 New Istanbul Films 1416 The Absent Women of New Turkish Cinema 163

Afterword 179Notes 181References 195

Index 203


5/34

1

INTRODUCTION

NEW TURKISH CINEMA IN HISTORICAL

PERSPECTIVE

In one scene in Toss Up(Yaz/Tura, Uur Ycel, 2004), the warveteran protagonist looks at the cave houses of his hometownGreme after a night of heavy drinking and says in bewilderment:There are ghosts in these houses. This line can be taken toexpress the central problem of the new wave Turkish cinemathat emerged during the second half of the 1990s. New wave

Turkish films, popular and art films alike, revolve around thefigure of a spectral home. Again and again they return to theidea of home/homeland; they reveal tensions, anxieties, anddilemmas around the questions of belonging, identity, andmemory in contemporary Turkish society.

The figure of the spectral home at the center of new waveTurkish films might take on different forms and meanings. Attimes, it turns into a romantic fantasy of belonging, an idealizedhome that one nostalgically remembers and longs for. At othertimes, it becomes a haunted house. New wave Turkish cinemaoften tells us stories of uncanny houses haunted by the ghosts ofthe past houses associated with trauma, violence, and horror.

I

The beginnings of cinema in Turkey date back to the late 1890s,when private screenings were held in the palace for the sultans


6/34

New Turkish Cinema

2

court. The first movie theater was established in 1908 in Pera the most cosmopolitan district of Istanbul by Sigmund

Weinberg, a Polish Jew from Romania. This was followed byseveral other theaters, mostly run by members of the non-Muslim minorities.

In terms of film production, the origins of Turkish cinemaare quite puzzling. According to a generally held view amongTurkish film critics, the first film by an Ottoman citizen wasa documentary, The Demolition of the Russian Monument atSan Stefano (Ayastefanos Abidesinin Ykl), made in 1914 by

Fuat Uzknay, an army officer who had taken an interest incinematography. However, this film did not survive; in fact, itis unclear whether it ever existed (Erdoan and Gktrk, 2001:534).1Moreover, several documentary films had already beenmade within the borders of the Ottoman Empire prior to 1914.

Yet, most of these films have been excluded from Turkish filmhistory because the filmmakers were not of Muslim-Turkishorigin,2or because their identity was not known (Kaya Mutlu,

2007: 82).During the final years of the empire, a handful of fiction

films, mostly adaptations from theater or literature, wereproduced.3 The period following the establishment of theRepublic that is, the years between 1923 and 1939 has beendesignated the stage artists era in Turkish film history (zn,1995). Muhsin Erturul, a reputed theater actor and director,almost exclusively dominated the cinema of the newly foundedRepublic. The films made in this period were often adaptedfrom stage dramas or from films made in Europe and America.They are characterized by an exaggerated mode of acting andtheatrical mise-en-scne.

The 1940s are often called a transition era by film histori-ans, since they represent a transition from a theater-orientedapproach to a more cinematic style. During this era, directors

without prior experience in theater started to make films. Sev-eral production companies were also established in these years.


7/34

3

Introduction

In 1948, the municipal tax on domestic films was reduced to 25percent (while the tax on foreign films remained 70 percent).

Protecting Turkish cinema in financial terms, this regulationgave a boost to the commercial film industry. Thereafter, cin-ema began to emerge as a truly popular form of entertainmentin Turkey during the 1950s.

A crucial decade in the history of modern Turkey, the 1950swere characterized by the transition from a single-party regimeto multi-party democracy. The 1950 elections resulted in the

victory of the Democratic Party over the Republican Peoples

Party, which had been established by Mustafa Kemal Atatrk,the founder and first president of the Republic. In contrast to theelitist stance of the Republican Peoples Party, the DemocraticParty emphasized populism and the rule of the people. The1950s were a period of fast economic growth, industrializationand urbanization. It was also a time of increasing mass migrationfrom the countryside to the cities, most notably to Istanbul.In this social and political climate, popular cinema began to

flourish (Bker, 2002). With the 1948 tax reduction on domesticfilms, the film business was now open to anyone who soughtprofit (Erdoan and Gktrk, 2001). Despite the increasingcommercialization of the film sector, the 1950s also saw theemergence of several important filmmakers who developedtheir own cinematic style. mer Ltfi Akad, Metin Erksan, Atf

Ylmaz, Memduh n, Nejat Saydam, and Osman Seden areamong the prominent directors of this period.

After its first beginnings in the 1950s, popular cinema had itsheyday during the 1960s and early 1970s. The popular Turkishcinema of this period is generally called Yeilam cinema(literally, pine-tree cinema), after the street in Istanbul wherethe film production companies were located. The period wascharacterized by a dizzying pace of film production. Increasingdemand from the audience caused rapid expansion; during itsgolden years, 200 films were produced every year on average(Bker, 2002). These films entertained not only domestic


8/34

New Turkish Cinema

4

audiences, but also became popular in other Middle Easterncountries such as Iran, Iraq, and Egypt (Erdoan, 1998). This

period also generated a unique mode of production, essentiallydetermined by regional distributors. Typically, producerscontacted the regional film distributors in provincial townsto negotiate plots and stars. Knowing their audiences tastes,the distributors could demand revisions to plot and casting(Erdoan and Gktrk, 2001). While melodrama and comedy

were the prominent genres of Yeilam cinema, historical actionadventure or gangster movies were also produced. Mainly a

cinema of stars, Yeilam did not grant much power to directors.Despite all these adverse factors, directors such as DuyguSarolu, Ertem Gre, Halit Refi, Muharrem Grses, Orhan

Elmas, and Sreyya Duru, along with the veteran directorsof the previous decade, made films in a coherent style, while

working within the constraints of a highly commercializedindustry. Films dealing with social issues such as workersrights, internal migration, and feudal relations also began to

appear in the 1960s. The most significant international successof Turkish cinema during this period was the Golden Bearawarded to Metin ErksansDry Summer(Susuz Yaz, 1963) at the1964 Berlin Film Festival. Shot in a realist style, Erksans film

was about the conflicts surrounding ownership of land andwater in southern Anatolia.

A period of great social and political upheaval as a result ofcontinuous clashes between leftist and rightist groups, the 1970s

witnessed the emergence of a politicized social-realist cinemain Turkey, mostly associated with the legendary director YlmazGney. Gney entered the film business in the late 1950s, asa scriptwriter and production assistant. Shortly thereafter, hemade his debut as an actor and quickly became very popular,particularly in the provinces. His appeal as an actor was linkedto the rough anti-hero image that he created on screen, a sharpcontrast to the polished images of the middle-class heroesdominating Turkish melodrama and romantic comedies at


9/34

5

Introduction

the time. His natural acting style, which allowed him to bringelements from his own lower-class background to the screen,

was greatly appreciated by the audience. His rude and uprighttough-guy image earned him the nickname Ugly King ofTurkish cinema and quickly made him Turkeys most popularstar in the mid-1960s. At that time, he starred in about twentyfilms per year, most of which were gangster films. Gneymade his directorial debut in 1966; his early films followed theformula of the crime thrillers that had made him a star. It wasnot until the early 1970s that Gney began to make political

films dealing with social problems in a realist style. He madehis first political film, Hope (Umut), in 1970 a milestone inTurkish cinema. In a peculiar realist style,Hopetells the story ofan impoverished, naive horse-cab driver duped into searchingfor buried treasure. In 1972, Gney was arrested for shelteringanarchist refugees and sentenced to seven years in prison. He

was pardoned and released in 1974 under a general amnesty.In the same year, however, he was again imprisoned, this time

for murder.4Following his second imprisonment, he began towrite detailed scripts in prison, to be filmed by his assistants.The Herd(Sr, 1978), The Enemy(Dman, 1979), and The Way(Yol, 1982) were written by Gney in prison and directed byZeki kten (The Herd and The Enemy) and erif Gren (TheWay) on his behalf.

Bringing Ylmaz Gney the Palme dOr at the 1982 CannesFilm Festival,5 The Way is arguably the most internationallyacclaimed Turkish film ever made to date. Tracing the stories offive prisoners traveling on a weeks leave from prison to differentparts of Turkey, The Waypresents a subtle critique of the 1980military intervention. Each prisoner travels to a different partof eastern Anatolia to visit his family and resolve personalmatters. The prisoners hope and optimism quickly give wayto desperation, as they find out that the free society they aresupposed to enter is no less claustrophobic and oppressive thanprison. Using prison as a metaphor for the state of Turkish


10/34

New Turkish Cinema

6

society under military rule, the film raises a radical critique notonly of the oppressive Turkish state, but also of feudal traditions

prevailing in rural Turkey. The Wayis a legendary film in Turkeybecause of the extraordinary conditions under which it wasproduced: as mentioned above, Gney wrote the screenplay

while in prison, in 1979. It was shot in the following year by hisassociate erif Gren.6Shortly thereafter, Gney escaped fromprison and fled the country. In 1981, Gney himself edited thefilm in Switzerland and released it in Europe. After the filmssuccess at Cannes in 1982, Gney completed his last film, The

Wall(Duvar, 1983). He died of cancer in France in 1984, leavingnot only more than a hundred films, but also innumerablestories about his charismatic personality, stormy relationships,political activities, and notorious temper.7Along with Gneysother films, The Waywas banned in Turkey during the 1980s. It

was not until the early 1990s that his films began to appear intheaters and on television. A group of directors among them

Ali zgentrk, Bilge Olga, Erden Kral, mer Kavur, erif

Gren, Yavuz zkan, Yusuf Kurenli, and Zeki kten whohad either been associates of Ylmaz Gney or influenced byhis cinema contributed to the development of the social-realisttradition during the 1970s and 1980s. Their films criticallyaddress social problems such as class inequality, social injustice,internal migration, economic underdevelopment, and feudalpatriarchal relationships prevailing in rural Turkey. In theaftermath of the 1980 military coup, confronted with hardenedcensorship and a changing audience profile, the social-realisttradition gradually disappeared.

After its successful commercial growth from the 1950s to themid-1970s, Turkish cinema started to decline in the late 1970s.The primary reason behind this decline was the paradoxicalsituation that, despite the commercial vitality of popular cinema,a powerful film industry never existed in Turkey. During theheyday of Yeilam cinema, profit-minded producers investedfilm revenues not in the film industry, but in other sectors in


11/34


12/34

New Turkish Cinema

8

the military regime was still effective, the mid-1980s witnessedthe emergence of new social movements including those of

feminists, gay communities, and environmentalists as wellas new forms of social activism. Questions of cultural identityand difference became the yardstick of the new civil societymovements of the period (Tekeli, 1995). Under the influenceof the new social movements, the fundamental constituents ofthe Turkish Republic that is, the principle of secularism, and aunified national identity have undergone critical scrutiny sincethe second half of the 1980s (Kasaba, 1997).

In the oppressive political and social climate of the early1980s, popular Turkish cinema became estranged from itstraditional audience and could not keep pace with the trans-formation of society. Apart from a few successful films, theterm Turkish film turned into a joke, connoting bad taste andbanality. In order to survive under these adverse conditions,film companies changed the medium and began to producefilms in video format, targeting Turkish migrant workers in

Europe. At the same time, filmmakers were trying to findnew ways of expression, to address the changing dynamics ofsociety. Different from the leftist social-realist perspective ofthe 1970s, films now centered on subjective issues. Under theinfluence of the powerful feminist movement of the period,one of the most frequently explored issues was the interroga-tion of female subjectivity and gender relations. A sub-genrecalled womens films became popular during this period.

Another emerging trend was the preoccupation with the possi-bilities of the medium itself. Self-reflexive films focused on thecinematic production process and problems of representation(Erdoan and Gktrk, 2001).

The crisis in the film industry deepened throughout the1980s and early 1990s. Not only did the number of the filmsproduced drastically reduce, but so did the number of viewers.

Atilla Dorsay (2004: 12), a prominent Turkish film critic,defines the early 1990s as the collapse of Turkish cinema and


13/34

9

Introduction

points to developments in the culture industry as key factorsbehind this decline. These developments were related to the

social and economic transformation of Turkey at the time. Ineconomic terms, the period starting with the 1990s has been aperiod of perpetual crises for Turkey, during which the Turkisheconomy shrank significantly and investment declined, whilebankruptcies and unemployment radically increased (Keyder,2004). Despite these adverse factors, however, the 1990s havealso been a decade of unprecedented expansion for the cultureindustry. As a result of neo-liberal policies of privatization and of

opening up the domestic market to foreign investors, the mediaand advertising sectors have grown rapidly and boosted theirprofits. Advertising companies have established internationalconnections and benefited from the expertise of the leadinginternational brands in the sector (Erdoan and Gktrk, 2001).

Also, US distribution companies such as Warner Bros. andUnited International Pictures have opened branches in Turkeyin order to take over the distribution of American films. These

companies soon equipped their theaters with high-qualityprojection and sound systems. Now Turkish audiences can seeHollywood films at the same time as international audiences,as soon as they have been released, rather than having to waitmonths or even years.

Another key development was the commencement of privatetelevision. With the 1994 Code of Private Radio and TelevisionBroadcasting, the monopoly of the state-based Turkish Radioand Television Institution (TRT) was officially terminated.The second half of the 1990s saw the emergence of hundredsof private radio stations and television channels, both local andnational. Parallel to this development, other sectors of the cultureand media industry (such as advertisement, music, and thepress) have also undergone a rapid growth process. Interestingly,these developments first had a negative impact on Turkishcinema (Dorsay, 2004). For the audience of the 1990s, whocould watch television shows for free and the latest Hollywood


14/34

New Turkish Cinema

10

productions in luxurious movie theaters, the amateurish, low-quality domestic productions shown in second-rank movie

theaters were no longer attractive. Meanwhile, the audienceprofile of Turkish cinema had also changed. With the improvingstandards of movie theaters, ticket prices increased. Cinema isno longer a lower-middle class entertainment, and families nolonger constitute its primary audience. The new moviegoersare educated, young, middle- and upper-middle-class urbanites(Maktav, 2001/2).

The 1990s were an ambivalent decade for Turkey, leading to

bleak events in society along with some promising develop-ments. Throughout most of these years, Turkey experienceda protracted conflict between separatist Kurdish guerillas andthe Turkish army, claiming an estimated 30,000 lives, mostlypersons of Kurdish origin.8 In the mid-1990s, more than1,500 rural settlements were evacuated as part of the militarycampaign against guerilla forces, leading to the massive dis-placement of Kurdish peasants (Keyder, 2004). In 1999, after

the arrest of Abdullah calan, the leader of the PKK (KurdistanWorkers Party), the ethnicized violence decreased and a newprocess of democratization began. As the discord in easternTurkey temporarily came to an end, Turkeys relations withthe European Union (EU) improved, and at the 1999 Helsinki

EU Summit, Turkeys candidacy for EU membership was forthe first time officially announced. Despite the anti-Turkishsentiments prevailing in several EU countries, full membershipnegotiations between Turkey and the EU officially beganin October 2005. A reform process started after the EUsdeclaration of Turkish candidacy for membership and gatheredspeed with the 2002 election of the Justice and DevelopmentParty (AKP), which received 37 percent of the vote. Regardlessof its Islamic background, the AKP government played a keyrole in the reform and democratization process (Keyder, 2004).Civil society movements supported the AKP governmentsefforts in the candidacy process since they saw it as the only way


15/34

11

Introduction

of achieving greater democracy, rule of law, and an expandedpluralism. By the end of the 1990s, the moderate wings of

Islamic and Kurdish movements had joined the ranks of civilsociety and human rights activists advocating rapid fulfillmentof the conditions required by Brussels (Keyder, 2004).

The advancement of the EU process has also given rise tothe proliferation of nationalist discourses in Turkey. Parallel tothe global nationalist trend, visible particularly in the triangleformed by the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus,Turkish nationalism gained momentum in the late 1980s and

1990s (Bora, 2003). Perceiving the EU process as a threat tothe unity and sovereignty of the country, nationalist discoursesspread aggressively in the 2000s, to encompass not only theentire political right, but also several branches of the left. Inthe meantime, security in eastern and southeastern Turkeydeteriorated again, and clashes between the armed forces andKurdish guerillas were renewed. As the number of militarycasualties increased, nationalist movements gained furtherstrength. By 2007, the reform process had come to a halt,already having slowed down over the course of 2006. This wasdue to various European countries increasing opposition toTurkeys EU membership, which weakened the position of thereformist AKP government. It was also the result of the AKPsdeclining commitment to the reform process, in the interest ofattracting nationalist votes for the 2007 parliamentary elections

in which it was re-elected by gaining nearly 50 percent of thevotes (Kurban, 2007).The recent transformation of Turkish society is based on a

struggle between various forces, interests, and voices. This hasbeen a period of ethnic and nationalist violence, as well as ofgreat efforts towards peace, democratization, and pluralism.

Aye Gl Altnay describes this difficult process as follows:

The military intervention of 1980, the re-writing of the constitutionby the military regime in 1982, and the internal war between the PKK


16/34

New Turkish Cinema

12

(Kurdistan Workers Party) and the state security forces in the 1990ssignificantly militarized Turkish political discourse and practice.Characterized by polarization, antagonism, win or lose logic, thenormalization of violence, and ethnic nationalisms (both Turkishand Kurdish), this militarized political space left little room for voicesof democratization and pluralism to articulate themselves. Still, thesame period witnessed a proliferation of political organizing againstmilitarization, nationalism and discrimination of all sorts. Feministmovements, human rights activism, gay and lesbian organizations,conscientious objectors, nonviolence training groups, and peaceinitiatives challenged the existing political discourse and proposed anew language to approach difference in the context of a democratic

polity. (Altnay: 2007: 22)

It was in the context of these complex developments that newwave Turkish cinema was born.9After a period of grave reces-sion and crisis, the mid-1990s witnessed a remarkable revival ofTurkish cinema in two separate forms: a new popular cinema

with considerable box-office success on the one hand, and anart cinema receiving critical acclaim and prestigious awards in

national and international festivals on the other. The motiva-tional force behind both modes of film production was a newgeneration of young directors who made their first feature filmsafter the mid-1990s.

Turkish film critics generally consider Yavuz Turguls 1996film The Bandit(Ekya) to have inaugurated new popular Turk-ish cinema. The Banditmerges classical Yeilam themes withflawless visuals in the grand style of Hollywood productions.

It addresses issues that Yeilam cinema had again and againraised in the past, such as the decision to choose money

versus love, love versus paternal responsibility, dedicationversus individual freedom, all boiling down to redemption andsacrifice (Erdoan, 2002: 234). It is, however, a post-Yeilamfilm in the sense that its cinematography, soundtrack, specialeffects, and editing display a technical perfection comparableto that of Hollywood productions (Erdoan and Gktrk,2001: 549).


17/34

13

Introduction

With The Bandit, Turkish cinema reversed its fortunes interms of box-office success. Reaching a record number of

more than 2.5 million viewers in the movie theaters, The Banditsucceeded in making Turkish films attractive again.10Comparedto the extremely low viewer numbers of the previous decade,an audience of 2.5 million for one single film was a miraculousachievement. Furthermore, The Banditowes its success not to asuccessful advertising campaign in fact, very little money wasspent on promotion but to the viewers appreciation. Unlikefilms promoted by elaborate campaigns, The Bandit attracted

the largest audience not in the first week of its release, but inthe fourth one. Evidently, viewers spread favorable opinionsabout the film by word of mouth, and the size of the audiencegradually increased.

The Banditbecame not only a major blockbuster, but also amodel for later box-office success.Following the same formula,many popular Turkish films of the late 1990s and early 2000scombined technical features of contemporary Hollywood

blockbusters such as fast editing, mobile camera, fast action,and flawless mise-en-scne with an ironic handling of Yeilamthemes. The commercial success of popular cinema graduallygrew in the years following the production of The Bandit.

Eventually, box-office rates of above 1 million viewers becamecommon for popular Turkish films.

The new popular cinema has generated its financial resourcesnot so much from the film business, but from other segmentsof the culture and media industry, most notably televisionand advertising. As successful professionals in television and/or advertising, the star directors of popular cinema amongthem aan Irmak, Ezel Akay, Mustafa Altoklar, Osman Snav,mer Faruk Sorak, Serdar Akar, Sinan etin, Yavuz Turgul,and Ylmaz Erdoan finance their big-budget films mostly

with the help of the revenues and business contacts generatedfrom these sectors.11 Receiving widespread promotion anddistribution on the domestic market, their films have not only


18/34

New Turkish Cinema

14

earned considerable box-office revenues in Turkey, but they arealso distributed in European cities that have a large population

of Turkish migrants.In 2001, Ylmaz Erdoans directoral debut Vizontele (co-

directed by mer Faruk Sorak) surpassed the record of TheBanditand reached more than 3.3 million viewers.12Already apopular television star, Erdoan as the leading actor and director

was presumably a primary factor in attracting viewers. Tellingthe story of the introduction of television to a remote town ineastern Turkey during the 1970s, Vizontelereproduces to some

extent Ylmaz Erdoans already familiar comedy style.In 2004, G.O.R.A., a film starring the popular stand-up com-

edian Cem Ylmaz, became the new record-breaking blockbusterwith more than 4 million viewers.13A parody of space-odysseyfilms, G.O.R.A. depicts what would happen if a Turk wereabducted by aliens and found himself on a spaceship. Althoughdirected by mer Faruk Sorak, the co-director of Vizontele, thefilm is often credited to Cem Ylmaz, who wrote the story and

played the two main characters, the hero and the villain. Thefollowing year, a melodrama blended with humor,My Father and

My Son (Babam ve Olum), became a blockbuster, reaching anaudience of more than 3.8 million.14Telling the story of a dif-ficult relationship between a father and a son in an Aegean townin the aftermath of the 12 September 1980 coup, My Father and

My Sonis directed by aan Irmak, the renowned director of apopular television drama series. As a result of the commercial

vitality created by these and many other popular films, Turkishcinema reconquered the domestic market. In 2006, Serdar Akars

American-style, yet anti-American action adventure film Valleyof the Wolves Iraq(Kurtlar Vadisi Irak) set a new record, reachingmore than 4.2 million viewers in Turkey.15Based on a Turkishhit television series, this was the most expensive Turkish filmever made, with a budget exceeding US$10 million; Valley of theWolves Iraq also attracted a record number of viewers abroad:more than 500,000.16


19/34

15

Introduction

In 1996, the year when The Bandit succeeded at the boxoffice, Dervi Zaims Somersault in the Coffin (Tabutta Rvaata)

was also released. Somersault in the Coffinwas not a success incommercial terms, yet, with its unconventional story andinnovative cinematic style, many consider it as the film thatinaugurated new wave art cinema. Zaims debut work as directorand screenwriter, Somersault in the Coffin gives an account of lifein Istanbul from the perspective of a homeless man. The film

was made on a minuscule budget and under quite amateurishconditions. In the subsequent years, films such as The Small

Town (Kasaba, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 1997), Innocence (Masumiyet,Zeki Demirkubuz, 1997), andJourney to the Sun(Gnee Yolculuk,

Yeim Ustaolu, 1999) followed a similar path.They all havea distinct cinematic style unique in the history of Turkishcinema. Despite the critical acclaim that these films earned atinternational festivals, they attracted only a relatively smallaudience in Turkey and did not receive much media attention.It was not until several films received considerable international

acclaim in the 2000s that new wave art cinema was recognized athome. In 2002, two films by Zeki Demirkubuz,Fate(Yazg, 2001)and Confession (tiraf, 2001), were invited to be shown underthe prestigious division of un certain regard at the Cannes FilmFestival. The following year, Nuri Bilge CeylansDistant(Uzak,2002) won both the Grand Jury Prize and acting awards for itstwo male lead characters (Mehmet Emin Toprak and Muzafferzdemir) at the same festival.17 In 2004, Head-On (Gegen DieWand/Duvara Kar), not a Turkish film per se, but a film by theTurkish-German director Fatih Akn, won the European Film

Award and the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival. In 2006,Nuri Bilge Ceylans next film, Climates(klimler, 2006), receivedthe Fipresci Prize at the Cannes Film Festival.18These and otherawards have brought visibility to new wave art cinema both inTurkey and abroad.

Ahmet Uluay, Dervi Zaim, Handan peki, KutluAtaman, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Reha Erdem, Semih Kaplanolu,


20/34

New Turkish Cinema

16

Tayfun Pirselimolu, Uur Ycel, Yeim Ustaolu, and ZekiDemirkubuz are among the most prominent directors of the

new art cinema.

II

This book examines the development of new wave Turkishcinema in relation to notions of belonging, identity, andmemory against the backdrop of Turkish societys recenttransformation. I argue that new wave Turkish cinema, popular

and art films alike, constantly returns to the question of belongingand interrogates it from different social, political, and aestheticperspectives. New Turkish films revolve around the figure of aspectral home, which takes different forms and meanings inthe work of different directors.

Nostalgic remembrance of the past is a recurrent theme oneoften encounters in the new popular cinema. Chapter 1 discussesnew popular films that focus on the provincial small-town life

of the past, under the category of popular nostalgia cinema.Among the films discussed in this chapter arePropaganda(Sinanetin, 1999), Offside (Dar Alanda Ksa Paslamalar, Serdar Akar,2000), The Waterfall (ellale, Semir Aslanyrek, 2001), Vizontele(Ylmaz Erdoan, 2001), Vizontele Tuuba (Ylmaz Erdoan,2004), My Father and My Son (Babam ve Olum, aan Irmak,2005), and The International(Beynelmilel, Srr Sreyya nder andMuharrem Glmez, 2006). Drawing upon Gaston Bachelards(1994 [first published 1958]) conception of the childhood homeas an image of felicitous space, I argue that Turkish nostalgiafilms are imaginary accounts of the past as a period of collectivechildhood that is, as a period of the childhood of society asa whole. The spectral home at the center of the new popularcinema, in this sense, is haunted by a nostalgic yearning for along-lost childhood. Nostalgia films voice a critique of present-day Turkey through an idealized representation of the past as anage of collective childhood. This critique, however, is problematic


21/34

17

Introduction

in the sense that it renders society unaccountable for the eventsof the past and saves it from the burden of responsibility. In

popular nostalgia films, while malice is externalized because itis associated with the intervention of outside forces (often inthe form of the authoritarian state, military intervention, orneo-liberal economic policies), the presumed innocence andintegrity of home is left intact. Rather than engaging in a criticalinterrogation of the past, Turkish nostalgia films arrest thepast in an image of frozen childhood. Adopting the distinctionthat Svetlana Boym (2001) makes between the reflective and

restorative modes of nostalgia, I contend that Turkish nostalgiafilms are accounts of reflective nostalgia. In fact, nostalgiafilms become most interesting in those moments when theyreflect upon the ambivalences of longing and belonging. Thoseambivalent moments are often found in the marginal detailsand secondary themes of the story. Although new popular filmsmostly invoke a reflective mode, restorative nostalgia is notaltogether absent from contemporary Turkish cinema. Valley of

the Wolves Iraqcan actually be seen as a prominent manifestationof restorative nostalgia. Pointing to the continuity between thereflective and restorative modes of nostalgia, this chapter finallyattempts to establish that popular nostalgia films promote aromantic and celebratory vision of belonging, which precludes acritical engagement with the past.

Chapter 2 is devoted to the discussion of new wave politicalcinema. Drawing upon films such as Journey to the Sun(GneeYolculuk, Yeim Ustaolu, 1999), In Nowhere Land (Hibiryerde,Tayfun Pirselimolu, 2002),Mud(amur, Dervi Zaim, 2003),Waiting for the Clouds(Bulutlar Beklerken, Yeim Ustaolu, 2003),and Toss Up(Yaz/Tura, Uur Ycel, 2004), this chapter attemptsto show how new wave political cinema critically faces the past.The past that one encounters here is not nostalgic, but traumatic.The spectral home at the center of these films is haunted bythe traumatic events of the past. Discussing issues such as theconflict between the Turkish army and the separatist Kurdish


22/34

New Turkish Cinema

18

guerillas in the southeast, police brutality against politicalprisoners, people who disappear while under police custody,

discriminatory policies against religious and ethnic minorities,and so forth, new political films typically focus attentionon how the lives of ordinary people have been destroyed byTurkeys turbulent political climate of the recent past. Unlikepopular nostalgia films, which avoid serious engagement withpast political events other than in the form of a light-heartedcritique within the conventions of dark comedy, new politicalfilms focus attention directly on the question of how to come to

terms with a traumatic past. This chapter argues that Turkeysnew wave political cinema has in fact much in common withthe emerging independent transnational cinema in its relentlessinterrogation of questions of national belonging and identity.

In the context of new wave Turkish cinema, two names par-ticularly stand out as prominent auteur-directors of their gen-eration, because of the peculiarity of their oeuvreand the inter-national acclaim that their films receive: Nuri Bilge Ceylan and

Zeki Demirkubuz. Although neither of these directors directlyengages in political issues, their films are implicitly political intheir relentless interrogation of the question of belonging. Incontrast to the popular nostalgia films that describe situationsin which home is threatened from outside, the films by Cey-lan and Demirkubuz focus on situations where home is chal-lenged from within. We can always defend ourselves or evenrebuild after the home has been attacked from outside, writesNikos Papastergiadis (1998: 3), but how do you deal with thatslow but determined process of implosion? It is this very proc-ess of the homes implosion that the cinema of Ceylan andDemirkubuz describes.

Nuri Bilge Ceylan is arguably the most internationallyacclaimed director of the new Turkish cinema, especially afterhe received the Grand Jury Price forDistantat Cannes in 2003.The films that Ceylan has made so far Cocoon (Koza, 1995),The Small Town (Kasaba, 1997), Clouds of May (Mays Sknts,


23/34

19

Introduction

1999), Distant(Uzak, 2002), and Climates(klimler, 2006) arecharacterized by a thematic and visual unity. The tropes of home

and belonging constitute his central thematic preoccupation.Belonging is often discussed in relation to the question ofprovinciality. The province signifies not a particular locality, buta mode of feeling: ennui resulting from being stuck in a limitingplace where one supposedly belongs. In this sense, provincialitymight embrace the small town as well as the big city. The imagesthat Ceylan employs in exploring the themes of home andbelonging recall Gilles Deleuzes (1989) vision of the time-

image cinema. Drawing upon Deleuzes concept, Chapter 3attempts to reveal the paradoxical structure of home in Ceylanscinema. Home, in his films, connotes both confinement andcomfort, entrapment and ease. A certain notion of play is alsointrinsic to Ceylans cinema. Playing is articulated in his filmson three levels: in relation to children and their play; in relationto adults and their everyday activities; and in relation to theprocess of filmmaking itself. Utilizing Donald W. Winnicotts

(1982) understanding of playing as an experience that helpsacknowledge a paradox without necessarily seeking to resolve it,Chapter 3 suggests that Ceylans cinema is, more than anything,about acknowledging the paradoxes of home and belonging.

Zeki Demirkubuz is anotherauteur-director of the new Turk-ish cinema. To date he has made seven feature films, which havea thematic and visual unity. Demirkubuz films have closelyplotted structures, and tend to center on characters who areeither agitated or detached. In contrast to the ordinary situa-tions of everyday life depicted by Ceylan, Demirkubuz filmsalways draw upon highly dramatic and violent events, oftenmurder and/or suicide. Chapter 4 discusses how Demirkubuzfilms direct attention to the dark underside of domesticity andhome. In Demirkubuz cinema, home appears to be hauntedby routine malice. The houses we see in his films are alwaysdepicted as claustrophobic places. Stripped of all of its romanticconnotations, home is represented as a place of confinement, a


24/34

New Turkish Cinema

20

prison that enslaves its inhabitants. Thus, the prevailing moodin Demirkubuz cinema is that of claustrophobia. This mood is

visually conveyed in the mise-en-scnethrough the excessive useof claustrophobic interiors. Events usually take place in gloomyapartments or hotel rooms that look very much alike. Thesense of compulsive repetition is another peculiar characteristicof Demirkubuz cinema; this deepens the claustrophobic anddark tone of his films. In a confined world, everything perpetu-ally duplicates itself. Again and again, similar situations occurbetween different characters. The sense of compulsive repeti-

tion in the narrative leads to an abyssal structure that producesan uncanny feeling.

One interesting aspect of new Turkish cinema is Istanbulsfading out of the screen. New wave Turkish films concentratenot so much on Istanbul, but on provincial towns. In thoseinstances when the story is set in Istanbul, the geographical,historical, and cultural characteristics of the city are often erasedso that Istanbul turns into an oversized provincial town. In

contrast to the privileged position of Istanbul in Turkish filmhistory, the majority of the new wave films seem to have lostinterest in the city. However, this does not mean that Istanbulhas disappeared from contemporary films altogether. Instead,

we can talk about the emergence of a new transnational genreof Istanbul films that offer alternative ways of seeing the city.Chapter 5 examines different strategies of representing Istanbulin four films of the last decade, offering new modalities ofthinking about the citys recent transformation. Somersault inthe Coffin can be considered a pioneering example of the newIstanbul films, giving view of the city through the eyes of ahomeless man who lives on the Bosphorus. In contrast to therealism of Somersault in the Coffin, Istanbul Tales (Anlat Istanbul,2005), a film directed by five different directors (mit nal,Kudret Sabanc, Selim Demirdelen, Ycel Yolcu, and mr

Atay), reflects a flamboyant image of the city. Telling fivedifferent yet overlapping stories about the intersecting lives of


25/34

21

Introduction

characters from different backgrounds,Istanbul Talesadapts well-known fairytales to modern-day Istanbul. Finally, Fatih Akns

Head-On (Duvara Kar/Gegen die Wand, 2004) and Crossingthe Bridge: The Sound of Istanbul (Istanbul Hatras, 2005) reflecta peculiar image of the city. Head-Onis a love story that takesplace in two cities, Hamburg and Istanbul, whereas Crossing the

Bridge is a documentary on the diverse music scene of Istanbul.Challenging the notion of an authentic cultural identity, bothfilms represent Istanbul as a city in constant motion, a chaoticfusion of influences, interactions, and traditions. Of course, as

German productions, neither Head-On nor Crossing the Bridgeis part of new Turkish cinema. Yet, the peculiar imagery ofIstanbul that these films employ enables us to classify themas transnational Istanbul films by a Turkish-German director.New Istanbul films, Chapter 5 maintains, tackle clichs aboutIstanbul. Instead of negating them, they rather recycle clichs tomake new uses of them.

Chapter 6 seeks to engage in an overall discussion of the new

Turkish cinema and gender. Interestingly, the absence of womenis one of the defining characteristics of new wave cinema. Ina great majority of new wave films, the story revolves aroundmale characters; women are portrayed not as active subjects,but as objects of male desire. This absence, however, shouldnot necessarily be considered an altogether negative conditionin relation to the gender politics of new Turkish cinema. Theposition of new wave films towards women, Chapter 6 suggests,is shaped around a certain ambivalence. These films, on theone hand, subordinate women to men and deny them agency.This male-dominant attitude is of course problematic, forit reproduces the still powerful patriarchal culture in Turkishsociety. On the other hand, however, we can also detect apositive element in this masculinist picture, in the sense thatnew wave films sometimes exhibit a critical self-awarenessabout their own complicity with patriarchal culture. Thischapter examines the ambivalent gender politics of new Turkish


26/34

New Turkish Cinema

22

cinema through a discussion of Vasfiye Is Her Name(Ad Vasfiye),a 1985 film by veteran director Atf Ylmaz, made a decade

prior to the emergence of the new wave.19 In addition to itsinnovative cinematic style, Ylmazs film is important in Turkishfilm history because of its subversive gender politics. Chapter 6discusses Vasfiye Is Her Nameas a paradigmatic text to make senseof the gender politics of new wave cinema.

Chapter 7, the afterword, aims to provide a general assessmentof new wave Turkish cinema on the basis of the arguments ofthe preceding chapters.

III

An earlier and quite different version of this book was publishedby Metis Press, Istanbul, in the spring of 2006. The present

volume is more of a reminiscence of the original volume thanits repetition, for it includes extensive revisions. Some partshave been substantially revised, while others have been written

anew. The original volume has been updated to include severalsignificant works released after its publication. It has also beenrevised for readers who are not necessarily familiar with Turkeysrecent history.

I would like to conclude here by pointing to some short-comings of this book. It is always a challenge to write on anevolving cultural phenomenon. Hence, I know that my effortsto update the content of the book will ultimately remain futilein the face of the continuing developments of Turkish cinema.

Also, the specific conceptual framework that one employs tomake cultural developments intelligible will inevitably imposeartificial boundaries on cultural phenomena and result in fore-grounding certain works while downplaying others. The dis-tinction that I make between the categories of popular and artcinema is certainly an artificial one, and its explanatory power islimited, given the actual divergence of films. Similarly, I cannotclaim that I have done justice to all the films of new Turkish


27/34

23

Introduction

cinema. Significant works might have been left out or insuf-ficiently covered, either because they cannot be easily related

to the books conceptual framework, or because they werereleased only after its completion. However, these shortcomingsalso point to possible areas for future research on new Turkishcinema.


28/34

203

INDEX

A

Abbas, Ackbar, 193, 195Abisel, Nilgn, 7, 195Adorno, Theodor, 179, 194, 195Ahska, Meltem, 159, 195Akad, mer Ltfi, 3Akamas(Panikos Chrissanthou,

2006), 186Akar, Serdar, 13, 14, 16, 25, 45,

49, 174Akay, Ezel, 13Akn, Fatih, 15, 21, 153, 154, 156,

157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 191,192, 200

Aksoy, Asu, 45, 68, 69, 73, 200

Altnay, Aye Gl, 11, 12, 43, 60,65, 74, 161, 162, 180, 186, 195,197

Altnsay, brahim, 141, 142, 195Altoklar, Mustafa, 13, 184Amireh, Amal, 176, 195Andreadis, Georgios, 73art cinema, 12, 15, 16, 22Ataman, Kutlu, 15, 193

Atay, mr, 20, 148, 191

B

Bachelard, Gaston, 16, 26, 27, 28,195

Bakhtin, Mikhail, 136, 195Bal, Mieke, 38, 41, 58, 195, 196Balibar, Etienne, 179, 195Bandit, The(Ekya, Yavuz Turgul,

1996), 12, 13, 14, 15, 37, 38Baydar, Glsm, 63, 64, 196Bell, Vikki, 68, 196Bergman, Ingmar, 90Berry, Chris, 115, 196Binnaz(Ahmet Fehim, 1919), 182Birds of Exile(Gurbet Kular, Halit

Refi, 1964), 190

Block C(C Blok, ZekiDemirkubuz, 1994), 113, 114,116

Boats Out of Watermelon Rinds(Karpuz Kabuundan GemilerYapmak, Ahmet Uluay, 2004),188

Bora, Tanl, 11, 30, 45, 196Boym, Svetlana, 17, 41, 42, 44,

45, 47, 48, 196


29/34

New Turkish Cinema

204

Bresson, Robert, 90Brison, Susan, 66, 196

Bker, Seil, 3, 196Burns, Rob, 191, 196

C/

Calvino, Italo, 171, 172, 173,196

Camus, Albert, 120censorship, 6, 51, 52, 186, 187

etin, Sinan, 13, 16, 25, 184Ceylan, Nuri Bilge, vii, ix, 15, 18,19, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84,85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95,96, 98, 101, 103, 104, 106, 109,110, 111, 113, 115, 120, 139,175, 184, 187, 188, 189, 196

Chaudhuri, Shohini, 93, 196Chekhov, Anton, 90, 115

Chion, Michel, 138, 190, 196Chrissanthou, Panikos, 186iekolu, Feride, 150, 158, 191,

192, 196Claw, The(Pene, Sedat Simavi,

1917), 182Climates (klimler, Nuri Bilge

Ceylan, 2006), ix, 15, 19, 77,78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 88, 89, 93,94, 96, 120

Clouds of May(Mays Sknts,Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 1999), ix,18, 77, 78, 79, 80, 85, 90, 92,94, 99, 102, 104, 106

Cocoon(Koza, Nuri Bilge Ceylan,1995), 18, 77, 78, 79

Confession(tiraf, Zeki

Demirkubuz, 2001), 15, 113,114, 119, 128, 134, 136, 140, 189

coup, 6, 7, 14, 26, 32, 33, 34, 36,37, 40, 61, 63, 114, 164, 185

Crossing the Bridge: The Sound ofIstanbul(stanbul Hatras, FatihAkn, 2005), 21, 153, 157, 158,159, 161, 162, 193

Cyprus, 32, 61, 62, 73, 186

D

Dabashi, Hamid, 109, 110, 196

De Lauretis, Teresa, 172, 196Deleuze, Gilles, 19, 72, 91, 92,95, 96, 97, 196

Demirdelen, Selim, 20, 148, 191Demirkubuz, Zeki, vii, ix, 15, 16,

18, 19, 20, 113, 114, 115, 116,117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123,125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131,132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137,

138, 139, 175, 189, 190, 196,197

Demolition of the Russian Monumentat San Stefano, The (AyastefanosAbidesinin Ykl, FuatUzknay, 1914), 2, 181

Derivative(Trev, Ula nan na,2005), 193

Destiny(Kader, Zeki Demirkubuz,2006), 113, 114, 115, 117, 121,122, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134,136, 140, 189

Distant(Uzak, Nuri Bilge Ceylan,2002), 15, 19, 77, 78, 79, 80,81, 83, 86, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94,95, 96, 104, 175, 184, 188, 189

Dorsay, Atilla, 8, 9, 197

Dostoevsky, F.M., 115, 116, 120,121, 136, 139


30/34

205

Index

Dry Summer(Susuz Yaz, MetinErksan, 1963), 4

Duben, Alan, 162, 197Durak, Attila, 60, 197Duru, Sreyya, 4

E

Ebiri, Bilge, 182Egg (Yumurta, Semih Kaplanolu,

2007), 188

Elmas, Orhan, 4Enemy, The(Dman, YlmazGney and Zeki kten 1979),5

Erdem, Reha, 15, 188, 193Erdoan, Nezih, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 12,

16, 51, 52, 182, 197Erdoan, Ylmaz, 13, 14, 16, 25,

26, 31, 175

Erksan, Metin, 3, 4Esmer, Pelin, 176, 177, 178European Union (EU), 10, 11,

46, 51, 62Ezra, Elizabeth, 72, 197

F

Fall of Abdlhamit, The(Abdlhamit

Derken, Ziya ztan, 2003),184

Fate(Yazg, Zeki Demirkubuz,2001), ix, 15, 113, 114, 119,120, 121, 124, 126, 131, 132,140, 189

Fehim, Ahmet, 182Finn, Howard, 93, 196Freud, Sigmund, 125, 128, 197

G

G.O.R.A.(mer Faruk Sorak,

2004), 14gender, 8, 21, 22, 71, 163, 164,

171, 175, 176Giritliolu, Tomris, 175Gktrk, Deniz, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 12,

51, 52, 155, 156, 157, 159, 182,197, 199

Gre, Ertem, 4Gren, erif, 5, 6, 182Governess, The(Mrebbiye, Ahmet

Fehim, 1919), 182Gney, Ylmaz, 4, 5, 6, 114, 182,

183, 200Grbilek, Nurdan, 40, 83, 84,

110, 197Grses, Muharrem, 4

HHall, Stuart, 68, 197Harem Suar(Ferzan zpetek,

1999), 193Hayward, Susan, 71, 183, 197Head-On(Duvara Kar/Gegen die

Wand, Fatih Akn, 2004), 15,21, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,

191, 192, 200Herd, The(Sr, Ylmaz Gneyand Zeki kten, 1978), 5

Hidden Faces(Sakl Yzler,Handan peki, 2007), 193

Higson, Andrew, 70, 71, 198historical film, 26, 184Hope(Umut, Ylmaz Gney,

1970), 5

How Does Asiye Get Emancipated?


31/34

New Turkish Cinema

206

(Asiye Nasl Kurtulur?, AtfYlmaz, 1986), 165

Hung, Natalia Chan Sui, 185, 198Hutcheon, Linda, 139, 185, 198Huyssen, Andreas, 38, 39, 198

I/

lhan, Biket, 175na, Ula nan, 193In Nowhere Land(Hibiryerde,

Tayfun Pirselimolu, 2002),17, 52, 53, 55, 63, 64, 69Innocence(Masumiyet, Zeki

Demirkubuz, 1997), 15, 113,114, 116, 117, 121, 122, 126,127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134,136, 137, 140, 189, 190

International, The(Beynelmilel, SrrSreyya nder and Muharrem

Glmez, 2006), 16, 26, 33, 36peki, Handan, 15, 175, 193Irmak, aan, 13, 14, 16, 26irony, 110, 113, 120, 139, 140,

161, 173Istanbul Tales(Anlat stanbul, mit

nal, Kudret Sabanc, SelimDemirdelen,Ycel Yolcu andmr Atay, 2005), 20, 21, 148,149, 150, 151, 153, 190

vegen, Berfin, 63, 64, 196

J

Jameson, Fredric, 185, 198Journey to the Sun(Gnee Yolculuk,

Yeim Ustaolu, 1999), ix, 15,17, 52, 53, 54, 59, 68, 73, 74,175, 186

K

Kaftan, Eylem, 176, 177, 178, 193Kandiyoti, Deniz, 7, 196, 198Kaplanolu, Semih, 15, 188Kasaba, Reat, 8, 198Kavur, mer, 6Keyder, alar, 7, 9, 10, 11, 29,

46, 146, 198Kiarostami, Abbas, 90, 91, 93,

109, 199

Kieslowski, Krzysztof, 116, 135Kral, Erden, 6Kksal, zlem, 189Kurban, Dilek, 11, 199Kurenli, Yusuf, 6Kurds, Kurdish, 10, 11, 12, 17,

32, 37, 38, 43, 45, 46, 48, 52,53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 65, 66,67, 68, 69, 70, 74, 149, 152,

157, 177, 183, 186

M

Majaj, Lisa Suhair, 176, 195Maktav, Hilmi, 10, 199Manaki, Milton, 182Manaki, Yanaki, 182Marks, Laura U., 72, 199

Marriage of Himmet Agha, The(Himmet Aann zdivac,Sigmund Weinberg, 1916), 182

Mater, Nadire, 65, 66, 199melodrama, 4, 14, 35, 37, 116,

133, 134migration, 3, 4, 6, 61, 65, 73, 141,

191military, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 25,

26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 46,


32/34

207

Index

56, 63, 65, 66, 68, 86, 114, 130,185

Mine(Atf Ylmaz, 1982), 164Mommy Im Scared(KorkuyorumAnne, Reha Erdem, 2004), 193

Monceau, Nicolas, 74, 187, 199movement-image, 91, 95Mud(amur, Dervi Zaim, 2003),

17, 52, 53, 56, 61, 62, 73, 186Mulvey, Laura, 91, 165, 199Mutlu, Dilek Kaya, 2, 181, 182,

198My Father and My Son(Babam ve

Olum, aan Irmak, 2005),14, 16, 26, 33, 35

N

Naficy, Hamid, 71, 72, 188, 199national cinema, 70, 71, 72, 73

nationalism, 11, 12, 45, 46, 48,74, 179

neo-liberal, 7, 9, 17, 32, 33, 38Neyzi, Leyla, 39, 44, 49, 199Nicodemus, Katja, 191, 199Nietzsche, Friedrich, 179, 194Nights of Istanbul(stanbul Geceleri,

Mehmet Muhtar, 1950), 191nostalgia cinema, 16, 26, 185

O/

Offside(Dar Alanda KsaPaslamalar, Serdar Akar, 2000),16, 25, 28, 32, 33, 42, 43, 44, 49

kten, Zeki, 5, 6, 114Olga, Bilge, 6On Board(Gemide, Serdar Akar,

1998), 174, 175

nc, Aye, 146, 199Oohh Belinda!(Aahh Belinda!Atf

Ylmaz, 1986), 165Ottoman Empire, 39, 60, 160zgentrk, Ali, 6zkan, Yavuz, 6zn, Nijat, 2, 199zpetek, Ferzan, 193ztan, Ziya, 184ztrk, Semire Ruken, 176, 193,

196, 199

ztrkmen, Arzu, 61, 200Ozu, Yasujiro, 90

P

Pamuk, Orhan, 160, 188, 200Papastergiadis, Nikos, 18, 200Parla, Jale, 144, 200Pirhasan, Bar, 184

Pirselimolu, Tayfun, 16, 17, 52Play(Oyun, Pelin Esmer, 2005),

177popular cinema, 3, 6, 13, 16, 25,

39postmodern, 150, 185Propaganda(Sinan etin, 1999),

16, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 185provinciality, 19, 27, 28, 83, 84,

86, 106, 188

R

realism, 20, 79, 91, 92, 139, 183Refi, Halit, 4, 190Republic, The(Cumhuriyet, Ziya

ztan, 1998), 184Robins, Kevin, 45, 68, 69, 73, 200Rowden, Terry, 72, 197


33/34

New Turkish Cinema

208

S

Sabanc, Kudret, 20, 148, 190

Sarolu, Duygu, 4Saydam, Nejat, 3Seden, Osman, 3self-reflexivity/self-reflexive, 93,

130, 139, 140, 156, 171, 173,186

Shohat, Ella, 71, 73, 200Simavi, Sedat, 182Simpson, Catherine, 158, 192Snav, Osman, 13, 46, 185Sip of Love,A(Bir Yudum Sevgi,

Atf Ylmaz, 1984), 164Small Town, The(Kasaba, Nuri

Bilge Ceylan, 1997), 15, 18, 77,78, 79, 80, 83, 85, 86, 91, 92,93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 107

Somersault in the Coffin(Tabutta

Rvaata, Dervi Zaim, 1996),ix, 15, 20, 142, 143, 145, 147,148, 175, 190

Sorak, mer Faruk, 13, 14Spy, The(Casus, Sedat Simavi,

1917), 182Summer Book(Tatil Kitab, Seyfi

Teoman, 2008), 188Summer Love(O da Beni Seviyor,

Bar Pirhasan, 2001), 184

T

Tarkovski, Andrei, 90, 104, 105Tekeli, irin, 8, 164, 200Teoman, Seyfi, 188Third Page, The(nc Sayfa, Zeki

Demirkubuz, 1999), ix, 113,

114, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122,

123, 126, 127, 129, 132, 134,136, 137, 138, 139, 175, 190

Three Monkeys( Maymun, NuriBilge Ceylan, 2008), 184, 187time-image, 19, 91, 94, 96Times and Winds(Be Vakit, Reha

Erdem, 2006), 188Toss Up(Yaz/Tura, Uur Ycel,

2004), 1, 17, 52, 56, 64, 66, 67,186

Turgul, Yavuz, 12, 13, 37, 184

Turkish Bath(Il Bagno Turco/Hamam, Ferzan zpetek,1997), 193

Two Girls(ki Gen Kz, KutluAtaman, 2005), 193

U/

Uluay, Ahmet, 15, 196

n, Memduh, 3nal, mit, 20, 148, 190uncanny, 1, 20, 83, 95, 96, 125,

127, 128, 148Untidy Bed, The(Dank Yatak,

Atf Ylmaz, 1984), 164Ustaolu, Yeim, ix, 15, 16, 17, 52,

54, 73, 74, 175, 176, 185, 186Uzknay, Fuat, 2, 181

V

Valley of the Wolves Iraq(KurtlarVadisi Irak, Serdar Akar, 2006),14, 17, 45, 46, 47, 49

Vasfiye Is Her Name(Ad Vasfiye,Atf Ylmaz, 1985), 22, 164,165, 166, 169, 170, 171, 173,

178, 193


34/34

209

Index

Vendetta Song(smi Gzide, EylemKaftan, 2005), 177, 194

Vidler, Anthony, 95, 125, 190,201Vizontele (Ylmaz Erdoan and

mer Faruk Sorak, 2001), 14,16, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, 43

Vizontele Tuuba(Ylmaz Erdoan,2004), 16, 26, 28, 33, 34, 35,43, 175

W

Waiting for the Clouds(BulutlarBeklerken, Yeim Ustaolu,2003), 17, 52, 53, 57, 73, 175

Waiting Room(Bekleme Odas, ZekiDemirkubuz, 2003), 113, 114,115, 119, 120, 129, 140, 189

Walker, Janet, 186, 201

Wall, The(Duvar, Ylmaz Gney,1983), 6

Waterfall, The(ellale, SemirAslanyrek, 2001), 16, 25, 28,33, 34

Waugh, Patricia, 133, 134, 201Way, The(Yol, Ylmaz Gney and

erif Gren, 1982), 5, 6, 182,200

Weinberg, Sigmund, 2, 182Widowed Woman,A(Dul Bir

Kadn, Atf Ylmaz, 1985), 165Winnicott, Donald W., 19, 98,201

Woman Does Not Have a Name(Kadnn Ad Yok, Atf Ylmaz,1987), 165

womens films, 8, 164, 165, 173

Y

Yeilam cinema, 4, 37, 40, 132,141, 165

Ylmaz, Atf, 3, 22, 164, 165, 178,184, 193

Ylmaz, Cem, 14Yolcu, Ycel, 20, 148, 191Ycel, Frat, 157, 189, 190, 201Ycel, Uur, 17, 52

Z

Zaim, Dervi, ix, 15, 17, 52, 73,142, 143, 147, 175, 186, 190,201

Zincirbozan(Atl na, 2007), 184Zizek, Slavoj, 180, 194, 201

Documents

New Turkish Cinema