Diasporic cinema: turkish-german filmmakers with particular emphasis on generational differences

This project could not have been completed without the help of Ralph Schwingel, the producer of many Fatih Akın films, Pofessor Marco Abel, the filmmaker and scholar Tevfik Başer, the second generation Turkish-German filmmaker Sinan Akkuş and the third generation filmmakers Kemal Görgülü, Ayla Gottschlich and Hakan Savaş Mican. I am indebted to them for their generous offering of DVD copies of relevant films so that I could analyse a wider range of films to capture a more comprehensive picture of the generational differences between Turkish-German filmmakers. I am also grateful to the DAAD for funding my participation in a Group Study Visit to the Berlin Film Festival in 2009, where I had the opportunity to attend a seminar with Ralph Schwingel of Wüste Film.

A number of scholars have inspired and encouraged me throughout my research. First of all, I would like to thank my wonderful supervisor Dr. Daniela Berghahn, who made the development and completion of this project possible with her constant motivation, thorough and meticulous comments, and priceless guidance. I hugely benefited from discussions with and constructive criticism offered by my advisor Professor John Hill, and also by Professor Mandy Merck and Dr. Lina Khatib. I am also beholden to my dear friend and colleague Dr. Onur Öksüz, whose input particularly fortified my discussion of the Turkish reception of Turkish-German filmmakers. I thank the Head of Visual Communication Design Department at Ege University, Professor Dr. Zafer Özden, who provided me with the required authorisation to pursue my PhD abroad. I would also like to thank Cecila Busby for her very useful proofreading.

Finally, I would like to express my deepest and special gratitude to my friends, my dear family and my beloved partner Tom for their support, patience, encouragement and for always being there for me.

INTRODUCTION

How can the human world live its difference? How can a human being live Other-wise?

Homi K. Bhabha 1986

The contemporary world, and especially urban life, is characterised by increased mobility of people as well as the free flow of finance and goods, which results in a perpetual and unavoidable contact with strangers, with the “other”. This other not only comprises those modern nomads, the cosmopolitan elites – people such as tourists or businesswomen/men, who visit a place only temporarily, and who are particularly welcome if they keep consuming or investing. The new “other” also includes those who are mostly located at the sub-state and sub-national level; they are permanent, they dwell in, settle, inhabit, and become part of the daily life in “host” societies, gradually increasing their visibility, and subsequently demanding recognition and equal rights. This is the other within. This is the other which cannot be ignored. This is the other that host societies have to consider and deal with on a daily basis through the regulation of identity politics, border policies, and of social and cultural public spheres. This is the other whose presence, on the one hand, gives rise to the humanist celebrations of multiculturalism, hybridity, diversity and plurality, and on the other, to the increased securitisation policies and practices that aim to immobilise undesired foreigners or to control and reduce their movement, fuelled by a constantly felt fear and threat of contamination. Correspondingly, it is not surprising to see well-established, major events such as London’s Notting Hill Carnival, which is considered to be Europe’s largest street festival, celebrating diversity through masquerade in a form which originated from Caribbean culture, and at the same time, to witness France expelling its Gypsy/Roma communities and dismantling their camps despite the European Union’s instructions to stop deportation.

The terms global- and multi- prefixed our imagination of varied cultures and communities peacefully coexisting in close proximity, purportedly breeding (hybrid) lilacs out of the dead sand of tolerance, mixing hopes and desires of natives and foreigners alike. UNESCO’s World Culture Report 2000 is a classic document of how illusions of cultural diversity and pluralism continue to raise the hopes of blurring cultural frontiers and national boundaries, even as the ill-treatment of immigrants of colour or with Muslim (-sounding) names is business as usual at ports of entry into Europe and North America. (Mani 2007: 2)

Against this backdrop, diasporas across the world come to the fore as ever more active and powerful social agencies, shaping the structure and character of society in their countries of settlement, which they now call “home” if not yet a homeland. With regard to the examination of diasporas, Europe proves to be particularly important due to its colonial past, which resulted in mass migration from former colonies to the so-called motherlands, and its demand for cheap manpower to revitalise its wrecked economies especially after the World War II. Furthermore, the ongoing project of European integration, aiming at nullifying geographical borders between member countries while making them almost unsurpassable for the non-members, presents an intriguing case. It is highly debatable whether Europe is a welcoming “promised land” or in fact has become an even more impenetrable “fortress”, as observed by Yosefa Loshitzky (2010). Migration – voluntary or involuntary – has been part of human history for centuries; it is clearly a recurring phenomenon. What makes contemporary migration so significant is its scale, speed, and more importantly, its undeniable global visibility. The waves of migration and displaced populations following the two world wars formed the foundation for today’s various diasporic communities. “We may speak of diasporas of hope, diasporas of terror, and diasporas of despair. But in every case, these diasporas bring the force of the imagination, as both memory and desire, into the lives of many ordinary people” (Appadurai 2003a: 6). They exist at the heart of Europe, together with less desired immigrants such as refugees and asylum-seekers knocking on the doors of many European countries. Owing to their settled status, diasporas differ from the latter, and yet, due to the advanced communication technologies and travel opportunities available to them on a global scale, they also enjoy an increased level of mobility compared to the first generation members of their diasporic communities.