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

¹⁵³ This meant Turkey got one step closer to its perpetually pursued ideal of becoming an EU country. Consequently, the public interest and the resulting press coverage of the issue inevitably escalated and intensified from then on.
The portraits of Turkish-German filmmakers in the Turkish press emphasise their hyphenated identities, establishing them as bridging agents between Turkey and the EU. In general, the news items, articles or reviews in the papers invoke the filmmakers’ artistic achievements as evidence of the values Turkey and Turkish people actually have. Since the main concern of the pertinent news stories is Turkish-German filmmakers, the geographical, economic or strategic aspects of Turkish-EU relations are not discussed. Instead, the focus is on identity and culture as the determining discussion points for Turkey’s membership in the EU. These prominent filmmakers, as hyphenated nationals, permit Turkish journalists to create a strong case for Turkey’s bid as unquestionably part of Europe. Most newspapers adopt a consistent political discourse, asserting that Turkey should be eligible to join the EU despite the fact that it has so far been denied full membership on account of not having met certain criteria stipulated by the EU. This shared attitude across the press notwithstanding, a close analysis demonstrates that the coverage and framing of Turkish-German filmmakers and how such coverage is interwoven with the issue of Turkish-EU relations, differs according to the paper’s political position and ideology.

Mainstream Nationalist Papers

Upon receiving the Golden Bear for Head-On, Akın became the focus of national interest in Turkey for a variety of reasons that had little to do with the film’s aesthetic merits.¹⁵⁴ What Hürriyet, as a mainstream nationalist paper, was really interested in was Akın’s attitude towards Turkey’s position within the EU.
If I made a film about Turkey’s accession to the EU, it would have a happy ending. There are millions of Turks already living in the EU in general and in Germany in particular. They are part of the society. In practice, Turkey is already in the EU thanks to the existence of these people. Why should not we make Turkey an official member of the EU then? (“Türkiye-AB Filmini Mutlu Sonla Bitirirdim”, Hürriyet, 22 February 2004) ¹⁵⁵
Here, Akın clearly acts as a mouthpiece for Turkey. Articulating sentiments widespread among the Turkish population, he expresses Turkey’s demands for a fair and inclusive negotiation process.¹⁵⁶ Those news items that register Turkish-German filmmakers explicitly commenting on Turkey’s bid disclose an important and common strategy the papers employ in order to structure the political discourse, a strategy whereby the success of these transnational filmmakers is utilised to highlight the issue of EU accession. Akın in particular is covered by them, advocating Turkey’s constantly impeded yet “undeniable” right to become a member of the union on various occasions. Enunciating ever more courageous and defiant comments on the much-disputed issue, he secures himself a beloved and popular sanctuary in the hearts of the Turkish people:
Excluding Turkey from the EU is chauvinism. Defending theses such as the EU is a Christian Union or the borders of Europe will expand toward Baghdad is nothing but chauvinism. Turkey’s accession to the EU cannot be delayed any longer. This is an inappropriate policy. (“Türkiye'yi AB'den Dışlamak Şovenlik Olur”, Hürriyet, 24 February 2004)
However, Akın on his own is not responsible for reiterating the subject so often. A close analysis of the structure of these news stories reveals that Turkish journalists urge him continuously to comment on this particular matter. It is the persistent questioning and encouraging of journalists that ensures Akın takes up his presumed role not only as a cultural representative of his country of origin but also as a political ambassador of it. Akın’s declarations provide Hürriyet with the means to build an emotionally charged political discourse with a nationalist overtone that goes beyond simply considering the work or artistic vision of Turkish-German filmmakers. Rather, a deprived, unwanted but proud self (Turkey/Turkish) is constructed through and against the construction of a privileged and objecting other (Europe/European).
Mainstream nationalist examples of the Turkish press, especially Hürriyet and Milliyet, as the two newspapers that have had special editions for the Turkish community in Germany for decades now,¹⁵⁷ pay particular attention to issues concerning the Turkish diasporic community and Turkey’s relationship with the EU. They regularly follow the news coverage in the German press and publish their own interpretation of relevant items. An examination of these materials reveals the papers’ own agenda: to formulate and frame Turkey’s membership process as an issue of national and cultural identity, which is assumed by the Europeans to be intrinsically different from European identity. Since the “discourse of politicians and journalists who oppose Turkish entry into the EU tend to be rooted in a fixed vision of European identity” (Negrine et al. 2008: 63), mainstream nationalist Turkish papers meticulously select pro-Turkey examples from the foreign press to refute these opposing views. In most cases, these examples predictably contain ever more successful Turkish-German filmmakers as subject matters. Hürriyet’s reporting of an article from Die Zeit on the Turkish community’s role in German politics highlights the success of young Turks in the host country noted by the German newspaper (“Die Zeit: Türkler Çoktan Aramızda Yerlerini Aldı”, Hürriyet, 25 February 2004). According to Hürriyet, the article in Die Zeit undermines the very foundation of the ongoing debate about Turkey’s membership in the EU by proclaiming that Turks are already in the EU, and have even received many prizes in the fields of cinema and sport for their “new” country. The success of a number of other Turkish people noted in the Die Zeit article, in addition to young Turkish-German filmmaker Akın, challenges the general prejudice against Turks in Germany and calls the German authorities’ neglect and disregard of the Turkish diasporic community into question. This also serves to exemplify that the nascent positive image of Turks is not due to just a few individuals’ efforts; on the contrary, it can readily be generalised.
As perceived mediators between Turkey and Europe, a role assigned on account of their hyphenated identity, being neither Turkish nor German but claiming both affiliations simultaneously, Turkish-German filmmakers allow papers to speculate about Turkey’s supposed and much desired position in Europe. Their unique position can be used, as done by the Hürriyet articles mentioned above, to promote a sense of inclusion. In this context, a news item on Fatih Akın in the mainstream nationalist paper Akşam intrigues the reader with its title “Europe’s Eyes Are on Fatih” (Akşam, 17 October 2007). It immediately evokes a connection with the famous Ottoman Emperor Fatih in Turkish readers’ minds.¹⁵⁸ Fatih, literally meaning “conquerer”, was one of the most formidable and powerful Ottoman emperors who conquered Constantinople in 1453, and the major parts of Europe subsequently. As a result, newspapers, especially nationalist tabloids, tend to allude to his conquests whenever a Turkish person achieves something in Europe. Not unlike European newspapers, which also have a tendency to dwell on history, for example referring to the siege of Vienna by the Ottomans in order to justify prejudices against the so-called “barbaric” and “uncivilised” Turks (Negrine et al. 2003: 62), this antagonistic account by Akşam reveals a similar implicitly militarist subtext. What is basically implied here at a metaphorical level is that Turks are finalising Fatih’s attempt, begun six hundred years ago, by culturally conquering Europe today. Fatih Akın, his cinema and the corresponding role he plays in the process of Turkey’s accession to the EU in particular, prove to be an obvious special case owing to his name. Akşam, by employing a pun like this, articulates a certain attitude found within the mindset of the majority of the Turkish public as well as revealing its own political stance regarding Turkish-EU relations. Hereby, Akşam, as a mainstream populist paper with a nationalist agenda, fosters nationalist sentiment, while ostensibly promoting a pro-EU attitude.
Liberal Mainstream Papers

When it comes to the liberal mainstream papers such as Radikal, the subtlety in the nationalist tone is immediately noticeable. As in any other constituent of the Turkish press, the news items in Radikal are mainly politicised; so references to Turkey’s accession to the EU still set the tone of the news items even where films and filmmakers are concerned. However, the majority of the news stories and articles in Radikal do focus on film analysis, bringing the issue of aesthetics into the discussion. This is probably thanks to devout film critics and reviewers such as Uğur Vardan, Fatih Özgüven, Yeşim Tabak and Mehmet Başutçu, who regularly write for the paper. In accordance with the stress on the artistic merits of the filmmakers, these journalists generally refrain from resorting to any essentialist definition of national identity. Instead, the possibility of multiple belongings and hyridity is underscored and the filmmakers are carefully addressed as “Turkish-Germans”. The numerous examples of comparatively refined, intertextual, analytical and more informed reviews of Turkish-German films in Radikal allow us to infer that this is due to the general publishing policy and ideology of the paper. That is, its editorial policy, which presumably has some resonance for the sense of identity of its readership, positions the paper close to Western intellectual newspapers; in this sense, it has no need to emphasise how these filmmakers are/are not European/Turkish, because the subtext of its whole editorial policy seems to be that they understand the complexities of these matters rather than reducing them to crude nationalisms.

Leftist Papers

The journalistic portraits of Turkish-German filmmakers in left-wing Turkish newspapers differ remarkably from those in mainstream nationalist papers in terms of language and attitude. Cumhuriyet, as the nationalist Kemalist representative of the Turkish press, uses the success story of the film Head-On to highlight invidious EU policies in connection with Turkey’s accession to the EU. One particular news item emphasises the comments of Dieter Kopp, the president of the European Cultural Assembly, on Turkish-EU relations (“Duvara Karşı’ya Avrupa’dan Ödül”, Cumhuriyet, 15 February 2009). Even though it was the opera version of the film that received a European Tolerance Award in 2009, the title clearly refers to the film, and the paper frequently refers to Fatih Akın. That the foreign newspapers too regard the work (in any form) of Turkish-German filmmakers as a matter of politics corresponds to, and thus, reinforces, the stance of the Turkish press. Kopp states that the opera contributed remarkably to Turkish-German relations, and it is incomprehensible that Turkey, in spite of its enormous potential, is excluded from the EU. Cumhuriyet, the paper most cautious in its support of Turkey’s accession to the EU, prefers underscoring Kopp’s, that is, a European’s account of Turkey’s candidacy. Conveying the message by quoting a European representative’s tribute and avowal that Turkey deserves to become a member of the EU, unmistakably presents an unbiased account of the issue. This at the same time befits the paper’s tacit Euro-sceptic ideological stance. It is widely known that together with the main opposition party CHP, Cumhuriyet has a wary attitude concerning Turkey-EU relations, since it does not support Turkey’s membership unconditionally. The paper’s reservations emanate from worries that Turkey’s national interests might be jeopardised due to possible compromises Turkey may be asked to make during the negotiation procedures. As aptly expressed by Nicolaidis, “the Sevres syndrome is alive and well in Turkey” (2004: 8).¹⁵⁹ In accordance with this, rather than unreservedly glorifying Western values and what Europe represents, the paper appears to endorse the self-sufficiency of Turkey, and promote Turkey’s accession to the EU only provided that it is granted a full membership in the union like every other existing member.
The marginal leftist newspaper Evrensel, on the other hand, tackles the issue in a different manner. First of all, one should emphasise the fact that in this paper, as in Cumhuriyet, news items concerning Turkish-German filmmakers and their films are in most cases covered within the culture-art pages/supplements as they are supposed to be. This can be seen as one of the characteristics that distinguishes quality papers from tabloid ones. This distinction further gives a clue about the properties of the news coverage: it foreshadows whether the given newspaper will resort to a cheap, populist style or maintain a more neutral position. However, beyond this, and even though both Evrensel and Cumhuriyet could be located at the left end of the ideological spectrum, the former, in principle, stands for values exactly opposite to what the latter upholds.¹⁶⁰ When considering news coverage in an explicitly Kurdish newspaper like Evrensel, one should bear in mind the enduring Kurdish-Turkish conflict, and the fact that the EU represents the agency/power that provides incentives for the prevention of human right violations. For instance, thanks to the reform measures required by the EU for the completion of membership negotiations, the state of emergency that curtailed basic liberties in the Southeast of Turkey was lifted, leading to a remarkable improvement in the quality of life of Kurds living in that region. Similarly, legislation allowing radio and television broadcasts and education in Kurdish was introduced (Giddens et al. 2004: 20). In sum, since Kurdish people in Turkey claim to be subject to discrimination and even to state-endorsed oppression policies,¹⁶¹ they expect that Turkey’s accession to the EU will benefit them. So does Evrensel. In brief, the paper’s approach towards Turkish-German filmmakers, interwoven with the process of Turkey’s inclusion in the EU, is influenced by these socio-political factors.
Correspondingly, authors Aydın Yıldırım and Suzan Işık evaluate Akın’s film The Edge of Heaven with reference to Turkey’s relationship with the EU (Evrensel, 24 October 2007).¹⁶² They particularly draw attention to the fact that the issue dominates discussions even among ordinary citizens in Turkey on a daily basis. Therefore, they highlight the correlations between the film’s character development and the actual significance the issue has in the Turkish context. In this respect, they argue that the film’s characters, Ayten, Lotte and her mother Susanne, represent different agencies and alternative points of view as regards Turkish-EU relations. Akın is praised for successfully reflecting the diversity of opinions in Turkey about the issue in his film. However, rather than speculating about Akın’s hyphenated identity, they address the issue by adhering only to the film structure and narrative, for the film explicitly deals with Turkish-EU relations.¹⁶³ The neutral stance of the paper, made clear by focusing on the self-contained nature of the film, is further reinforced by another news story about the film’s continuing success. The newspaper notes that the European Parliament awarded The Edge of Heaven the Le Prix Lux prize, which was given for the first time, and the film was to be translated into twenty two languages thanks to the financial support of the European Parliament (“Avrupa Parlamentosu Sinema Ödülü de Fatih Akın’a”, Evrensel, 26 October 2007). The details of the coverage, when it is compared to Cumhuriyet’s above-mentioned coverage of a very similar success story regarding Head-On, underlines the differences. Unlike Cumhuriyet, which puts particular emphasis on a European bureaucrat’s laudatory remark about Turkey, Evrensel seems to be content with mere description of the ceremony.
This brief account of the news coverage in the Turkish press concisely exhibits a prevailing tendency to establish a correlation between Turkish-EU relations and the recent achievements of Turkish-German filmmakers. In this respect, every newspaper in Turkey seems to attribute significance to Turkey’s accession to the EU and to consider the issue as a newsworthy subject matter even though they have different and very specific reasons and motivations as underlined above. The only exceptions to this are papers such as Zaman on the one hand, and Yeni Şafak and Yeni Çağ on the other, which can be considered as Islamist and extreme right-wing respectively. Their predictable lack of coverage is probably due to their traditionalist and conservative perception of the EU, which, in its current structure, is basically seen as a Christian Union. Among them Zaman is known to have mitigated, if not totally surrendered, its negative attitude towards the membership in the EU in line with the incumbent Islamist party AKP’s temperate approach. Nonetheless, it still does not cover any news stories about Turkish-German filmmakers and the EU. Overall, however, the newspapers exploit Turkish-German filmmakers and their success either to support their pro-EU perspective or to underline their scepticism concerning the union’s insincerity and mistreatment of Turkey. In some cases, this is interlocked with a nationalist discourse that aims to create a particular national sentiment.
To conclude, articles about Turkish-German filmmakers in the Turkish press are harnessed to an overtly political agenda, namely Turkey’s EU accession. To understand this, it is necessary to understand the significance of the European issue for Turkey. Ottoman intellectual Abdullah Cevdet once clearly pronounced that “there is no other civilisation. Civilisation means European civilisation. It must be imported with both its roses and thorns” (cited in Rustow 1987: 14). More contemporary evaluations of Turkish-EU relations highlight the perpetual significance of the issue for Turkish people. General Yaşar Büyükanıt stressed that “Turkey’s membership in the EU is a must for the fulfilment of Atatürk’s grand design of modernisation. In any case, Turkey’s European Union project overlaps with its social, political and economic projects” (cited in Heper 2004: 4). The Turkish public’s preoccupation with Turkey’s accession to the EU is clearly deep-seated, and there is no escaping the particular role attributed to transnational Turkish-German filmmakers as political ambassadors in the Turkish press. The filmmakers are supposed to become exemplary spokespersons for the Turkish people, while their films are seen as the means of representation for Turks, Turkish culture and values – provided that they supply a pleasant and agreeable image of the homeland and of “Turkishness”.
It should be noted, however, that the prevailing national sentiment ingrained in most of the news discourses in Turkey seems to reveal an underlying Eurocentric attitude. The Turkish press endorses a feeling of identification with Europe while at the same time engendering a sense of hostility. In effect, the two can be construed as the opposite sides of the same coin for they reinforce each other. The dominant negative perception of Turkey by Europeans, as a “threat” that would change the union’s values and could easily become a burden on its structure and capacity as a “large, poor, Muslim” country (Negrine et al. 2008), results in an enhancement of the sense of rejection, exclusion and alienation among Turkish people. This instigates a strong sense of frustration and resentment caused by being subject to an incessant process of “othering” by Europeans who oppose Turkey’s membership in the EU; hence the newspapers – especially the nationalist ones – continuously attempt to reinvigorate national pride by reiterating successful stories of individuals in tandem with a reconstructed glorious past. However, the need for an absolute approval of and recognition by European countries concurrently discloses the preponderate Eurocentric perspectives in the Turkish press, implying a deep-seated self-doubt and associated low self-esteem. This is an important issue that I consider more fully below in relation to the wider question of national identity.
The Ceaseless Battle of Inclusion and Exclusion

Sabina Mihelj et al. argue that “narratives not only endow particular events with meaning, thus helping us understand and make sense of the social world, but also serve as tools of identity construction” (2009: 59). In view of this, the construction and consolidation of national identities require the concomitant construction of shared national myth(s) and collective history (Kaufmann 2002: 102). Because as they stand, “having no other anchors except the affection of their members, [nations as] imagined communities exist solely through their manifestations” (Bauman 1992: xix). National myths are widely circulated, and subsequently internalised, to create positive identification with a nation, since nation, in its primordial sense, is formulated as “a named human population sharing a historic territory, common myths and historical memories” (Smith 1991: 14). In this sense, Shapiro’s conception of films as “identity stories” which form the basis for a nation’s coherence through the articulation and representation of established binary contradictions such as “us” versus “them” (cited in Khatib 2006: 76) can also be applied to the news discourses. Accordingly, news coverage in the Turkish press concerning Turkish-German filmmakers, when combined with the question of national identity, constitutes a narrative that serves to stimulate national pride. The idea that “we are a nation endowed with extraordinary qualities” (Yumul and Özkırımlı 2000: 797) is exemplified by the achievements of these filmmakers. Of all the newspapers examined, the mainstream ones with a populist and nationalist attitude persistently accentuate the “Turkishness” of the filmmakers in question. This appears to be a systematic strategy which is aimed at bolstering confidence in the Turkish nation as to who they are through addressing these internationally successful filmmakers as exclusively Turkish. “By locating themselves or being located within a narrative – usually a narrative that is not their own making – human beings acquire a particular social identity” (Mihelj et al. 2009: 59). News stories praising Turkish-German filmmakers and their accomplished films, internationally recognised, provide a Turkish readership with a seemingly much needed sense of pride, but rely on a particular emphasis on the filmmakers’ ambiguous national identity as in this case “unquestionably” Turkish. In a parallel manner, if a Turkish-German filmmaker makes displeasing comments that would hurt this “susceptible” sense of national pride or endanger the reputation of Turks and Turkish identity, the overwhelming reaction of the Turkish press is disavowal and exclusion, an emphasis on the “other” side of the hyphenated identity. That is to say, the Turkish press cannot make up its mind as to whether it ought to embrace or disown these filmmakers. Hence the incessant battle about their reception and the ambivalent and fluctuating commentaries about inclusion in and exclusion from the Turkish nation-state.
As Venkat Mani observes, “what makes hybridity dubious is its complete dependence on location and affiliation – be it ethnic, national, religious, gendered, or even linguistic – in order to dislocate and disaffiliate” (2007: 125-26). Hybridity thereby implies instability and negotiation. It does not provide straightforward lines of affiliation nor “does it resolve the tension between two cultures” (Bhabha 1994: 113).