CHAPTER 3
ARARAT: ART OR PROPAGANDA?
The most asked question about Ararat is whether it is a typical propaganda movie or it is a serious art movie. That’s why in this section we will not only examine the technical properties of the film and reactions it generated, but also we will try to find an answer to this question.
In this section, firstly the script of Ararat is studied and the message it is trying to convey is examined with the help of examples. Secondly, we look into the technical and recording methods employed in the film. Thirdly, the director and the actors taking part in the movie are introduced. Egoyan’s life and experiences were discussed in the last section. That’s why we only discuss his opinions about this movie. Forth part deals with the political connections, environment in which the movie was made and the film’s financial structure. Lastly, we examine the response of the Western media to Ararat. Without doubt, these responses will have considerable influence on the success of the movie.
A. Subject, Purpose and the Message
According to the script, there are two time-lines in the film. A style of ‘a movie within a movie’ was used. The movie deals with a director Edward Sarayon (Charles Aznavour) who wants to make a movie about so called ‘Armenian genocide’, actors who play in the movie and their reminisces. Many characters play in more than one role. For example, Bruce Greenwood plays both the actor Martin and the American missionary Dr. Clarence Ussher. The story is based on a young driver (David Alpay) working at the movie set, whose life changes as the movie is made. As with other Egoyan movies, there are a few unusual or twisted characters. The most important point of the movie is that, while the movie is about relations between Turks and Armenians, there is only one Turkish character and he is a half-Turkish homosexual named Ali. Ali also plays the ‘bad Turk’, the Governor of Van Cevdet Bey. All Armenian Characters in the movie are ‘compliant’ and ‘troubled’. The focus of all their issues is Turks and the bad memories that they have caused. These memories are so strong that the even the current generation cannot free themselves from their destructive influence. This is conveyed by the unfortunate situation that Raffi and Celia are in.
If we summarize Ararat, the movie begins with a famous director’s efforts to make a movie about the conflict between Armenians and Turks in 1915. In the movie director Edward is an Armenian who lost most of his family in 1915 and is trying to fulfill a promise he made to his mother.
“Edward (to Martin, full of emotion)- Pointing to a photo of Ararat – This was the mountain my mother never saw after her family was destroyed (More)
Edward (Cont’d): Butchered in front of her eyes. Ararat was her dream. This is my gift to her spirit…” (A dialogue between Martin and Edward: 5 and 6)
Edward is so full of hate towards the Turks that he is willing to take liberties in the movie. For example, Mount Ararat is so far away from the city of Van that it cannot be seen from there. However, he constructs a Mount Ararat right behind the city. When told that this is incorrect, he replies that he is doing this in order to increase the effectiveness of the movie and is taking some poetic license.
In the first scene of the movie, Edward says that he always wanted to make such a film, but when asked why he did not do it before, his assistant Rouben replies:
“Rouben: Because, the Armenian Genocide has no resolution. The Turkish government has never admitted their crime, so it’s like a story without an end.
….” (The Script of Ararat, 4)
A person gets the feeling that Atom Egoyan sees himself in the character of Edward, and indirectly is telling his story. His earlier statements tell us that he has desired to make such a movie for years. He answers the question of why he did not do it before through a character in his movie.
Egoyan says that the movie is based on the memoirs of Clarence Ussher, which was published in 1917 in Boston. In other words, it is a true story (Dialog between Martin and Edward: Scene 5). There are two messages sent by this attitude: 1. What you are watching is the truth, 2. What you are watching was written by a respectable American like you.
The character Ali appears within the first few scenes. Edward and Rouben choose to cast a Turk in the role of the brutal governor of Van, Cevdet Bey. Their search leads them to Canadian born half-Turkish Ali. Ali, at the same time is in a homosexual relationship with a security guard in a museum, Philip who also has a son. The character of Ali seems to be included in the movie in order to confirm Armenian accusations. A dialog between Ali, the director and Raffi, after recording the Cevdet Pasha scenes seems to prove this:
“Ali is having publicity photographs taken as Edward stops by.
Edward: ‘I wanted to thank you.’
Ali: ‘Are you kidding? This was a huge break for me. Yor’re one of my favorite directors. Thank you.’
Ali and Edward shake hands A moment as the two men look at each other.
Ali (Cont’d: Can I ask something? Did you cast me just because I’m half Turkish?
Edward: ‘No. It was because I thought you would be perfect for the part.
Ali: ‘But being Turkish didn’t hurt.’
Edward smiles.
Edward: ‘No it didn’t hurt.’
Ali: ‘You never asked me what I thought of the history’.
Edward: ‘What is there to think’
Ali: ‘Whether I believe it happened. A genocide.’
Edward: ‘I’m not sure it matters…’ (…)’
‘The Reason of Our Hate is not the People or Lands We Lost’
In the continuing scene, Ali says that Turks had reasons to kill Armenians and implicitly acknowledge that ‘Turks massacred Armenians’. According to Ali, this reason was Russian invasion and the Turks were afraid of that Armenians would assist the Russians. These words surprise Edward, he does not accept them but neither does he say anything. He only says, ‘Whatever, again, Thank you.’ This scene is where the ‘wise Armenian’ and the ‘poor Turk’ meet. Raffi, who listened to this conversation, is shocked. It seems like Raffi is upset that Edward did not put Ali in his place. Edward’s reply to Raffi is both short and clear:
“Edward: ‘He’s having regrets about playing the part. I understand. He will receive anger from his people.
Raffi: But he thinks that Turkey was at war with Armenia. Why didn’t you explain that the Armenians were Turkish citizens? That they had a right to be protected. It was ethnic mass murder.
(pause, Edward waits) Doesn’t it bother you that he doesn’t get the history?
Edward: Not really.
Raffi: ‘Why not?’
Edward: Because he is history. His part is over.’
This scene ends with these words of Edward to Raffi:
“Edward (Cont’d) Do you know what still causes so much pain? It is not the people we lost, or the land. It’s to know that we could be so hated. Who were these people who could hate us so much? How can be they still deny their hatred, and so hate us even more?”’
However, this dialog had failed to satisfy, maybe the most important character in the movie, Raffi. He wants to understand how that ‘Turk’ could ‘deny’ what happened. When he drops of Ali to his home, he tells him that he played the part of the brutal governor very well and adds:
“Raffi: ‘I mean, I was raised with all these stories, evil Turks and everything, so I’m a little hardened to it all. But what you did today… it made me feel all that anger again.’
Ali: ‘Hey… thanks’.
Pause. They have come to a stop. Ali pauses before getting out.
Ali (Cont’d): ‘So… I guess you’re Armenia.’
Raffi: ‘Yes. That’s what I mean when I said I was raised to feel a lot of hatred to… the person you’ve playing.’
Ali: ‘Right.’
A Son who ‘Understands’ his Father who is an ASALA Terrorist
According to the script, Ali answers confused Raffi, with just a short laugh and asks, ‘Did you want to kill me’. Raffi hesitates, but says, ‘Well, yes’. If we can add a small detail, Raffi’s father was terrorist in ASALA and was killed as he was planning to assassinate a Turkish diplomat.
Ali replies to Raffi’s answer with a nervous laugh. Raffi’s words after this is, for us, one of the most important statements of the movie:
“Raffi (Cont’d): ‘My Dad was killed trying to assassinate a Turkish diplomat. Almost fifteen years ago. I could never understand what would make him want to murder, what he had to imagine that Turkish ambassador represented. Today, you gave me a sense of what was going on in his head. And I want to thank you’.
Ali (uneasy): ‘You’re… you’re welcome.’
As mentioned earlier, it can be seen clearly that the character Ali is used by Egoyan to justify Armenian accusations. Through the insensitive and superficial Ali character, all Turks are being criticized and are accused of ‘denial’. The dialogue between Ali and Raffi in the scene ‘44A. Inside. Ali’s apartment’ plainly shows the purpose of Egoyan. Ali, after hearing that there had been a ‘genocide’ at that time, just smiles. Ali looks indifferent and then makes such a bad defense that seems like he is giving credence to the Armenian accusations:
“Ali: ‘Look, I never heard about any of this as I was growing up. I did some research for the part, and from what I’ve read… there were deportations. Lots of people died. Armenians and Turks. It was World War One’.
Ali makes this statement for virtually the whole Turkish people. However, his defense is so weak that it seems that his statements are there in order to support the ‘strong’ Armenian theory. Accordingly, Raffi immediately answers Ali’s weak defense:
“Raffi: ‘But Turkey wasn’t at war with the Armenians, just like Germany’s wasn’t at war with the Jews. They were Turkish citizens, expecting to be protected. The scene you just shotf is based on an eyewitness account. Your character, Jevdet Bey, was placed in Van to carry out the complete elimination of the Armenian race. There were telegrams, communiqués…”
In the movie there is no statement about the reason why Cevdet Bey was appointed to his post in Van province. No telegraphs or messages. However, Egoyan using the ‘power of cinema’ gives credibility to his characters statements. At the same time, it is obvious that he confuses forceful exile with uprising. The uprisings of the armed Armenians living around Van, their Muslim victims and thousand who had to flee Van seems to be overlooked by Egoyan. Furthermore, the correlation made by Raffi, between Nazis and Turks is no accident. As mentioned in the beginning of the book, the radical Armenians, for the last twenty years, have been trying to equate their suffering to those suffered by the Jews. This statement, which is only 4-5 lines long, has very serious meanings, which have to be corrected. One point is the ‘Turkish citizenship’. In a multinational empire, these statements try to stir up a conflict between the Armenians and Turks by transforming the issue into a mythical conflict between ‘good’ and ‘evil. The intention to show the Turkish and Armenian as the contrast concepts can be found in the other parts of the movie: Egoyan prefers to use modern Turkish Republic’s national flag instead of the Ottoman Empire for instance although there was no country in 1915 called as Turkish Republic. It is clear that the director sees modern Turkey as responsible for the events or he simply does not know the basic facts regarding the Ottoman and Armenian history.
Ali and Raffi’s dialog in the script, while being full of historical falsifications, due to Raffi’s accusations being supported by so-called testimonies of witnesses, telegraphs and messages, together with a weak defense from Ali, might create a sense of truth in the audience which support Armenian accusations. Ali’s answer to all these accusations is just, “I’m not saying something didn’t happen.” In short he says, “you’re right. Everything you said, happened.” Ali’s replies to Raffi are statements that would shock anyone with some common sense. Ali not only accepts genocide allegation as a truth he even says that this is not important. In another word the weak Turkish character is used in order to strengthen the Armenian arguments:
“Raffi: ‘Something?’
Ali holds up the bottle of champagne.
Ali: ‘Look, I was born here, and so were you. Right?’
Raffi nods.
Ali (Cont’d): ‘It’s a new country. So let’s drop the fucking history, and get on with it. No-one’s gonna wreck your home. No-one’s gonna destroy your family. So let’s go inside, uncork this, and celebrate.’”
Ali, while insensitively disregarding an issue very important to Raffi and inviting him for champagne, is at the same time smiling. Egoyan’s message in this scene is very clear: Raffi is stunned by this blatant ‘Turkish denial’. In the continuation of the scene, Raffi maintains his association of Armenians and Jews and says that Adolph Hitler took courage from the Armenian massacres to perpetrate hi Holocaust. According to Raffi, Hitler said, ‘Who remembers the Armenians?’ Ali’s answer to these ‘unimportant’ accusations is again shocking. ‘And no one remembers it.’ The scene concludes with:
“Ali stares at Raffi, a slight, ambiguous smile on his lips. He turns to leave.”
It can be argued that this scene is the most important scene of the movie and portrays Turks as ‘insensitive, indifferent, who would insult his own people for money and fame, who would play in parts that he or she does not believe in, with no history knowledge, who would ignore the killing of hundreds of thousands of people, unprincipled and pragmatic who would forget everything with a bottle of champagne.’ The defense this character gives for the Turkish people seems to be there just t support Armenian accusations. Armenian accusations are portrayed as proven, factual and scientific deductions or truths. It is also interesting to note that the movie keeps ‘reminding’ us the similarities between Nazis – Turks and Jews – Armenians.
As mentioned earlier, the movie is about an Armenian director, Edward, who wants to make a movie about the pain and suffering of Armenian people. Edward and his assistant, after listening to a speech by an Armenian academic, Ani, about an Armenian painter Gorky, decide to make some changes in the movie. The plan of the director and his assistant is to show the childhood of painter as the childhood of one of the two messager-boys who help are communication channel between the American missionary Ussher and Armenian ‘resistance fighters’. So, the director wants to show the messenger boys as Gorky and his childhood friend. In other words, the child Gorky in the movie within the movie is not the real painter Gorky, there is no proof to that verifies this twist and the movie openly shows this falsification.
Ani, who is an art history expert, in her speech portrays Gorky as a great artist who was tortured by Turks. The objective here is to show the contrast between art – brutality and to clarify the distinction between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’. According to the script Gorky’s mother died from hunger in Gorky’s arms, during the forceful relocation of Armenians. Their house was destroyed, their lands were taken away and his people were massacred. Gorky’s ‘child and mother’ painting, which is in the museum where Philip is a security officer, is constantly shown in the movie. According to the script, the painting expresses only pain and this pain is the pain suffered by Armenians. In this painting, mother’s hands are not completed. This, according to the characters in the movie, means the still open wounds caused by continual denial made by Turks. Ani, who is portrayed as an expert in ‘Gorky’, in a scene says that, this unfinished painting by Gorky full of pain and suffering, portrays the unbroken code of the secret history of Armenians and answer the questions why and how Armenians are where they are.
Another stunning scene is where Celia stabs and damages Gorky’s painting. Celia is the stepdaughter of Ani and at the same time is having an incest relationship with her stepbrother Raffi. Celia, even though living nearly a century after the forceful relocation, thinks that the cause of all her problems are the pain Gorky suffered and the painting which expresses these pains. Here, we clearly see what Egoyan is trying to convey: according to Egoyan, Turks just the way they caused so much suffering for their ancestors, are continuing this torment for the grandchildren by denying what happened. Celia character also shows us how much Armenians hate Turks, and how they equate their daily problems with Armenian problem. This way Egoyan seems to question hate and especially in scene 66, makes Celia state that Ani’s problems are not political but only daily tribulations. According to this, Ani is culpable in her husband’s death due to her unfaithfulness. Just as Gorky’s pain was due to his wife’s affair with his best friend. However, here, Egoyan does not show enough courage and again throws the blame to Turks. In this context, the movie tries to underline the message that the reason why Armenians hate Turks is because Turks hate Armenians. Celia’s statements at the psychiatric institution seem to confirm this conclusion.
‘Poor Armenians, Evil Turks’
When we examine the script, another point we see is how brutal, insensitive and heartless Turks are and how caring and wise Armenians are. All Armenian characters in the movie are in considerable pain and the only cause of that pain is the Turks. So much so that, Raffi, returning from Turkey, agrees to take a package to Canada, unaware that it is full of drugs. If it were not for the compassionate customs officer David, a Turk again would have turned the life of an Armenian into hell. In summary, Armenians have suffered immensely and are continuing to suffer at the hand of Turks. Even the most peaceful Armenian suffers under the past injustices. Middle aged and elderly Armenians still remember how their parents were tortured and butchered. The younger generation is bewildered under the weight of history and the influence of assimilation. Some have father who were ASALA terrorists, some still do not understand why Turks hate them so much. Additionally, drug use, family problems, psychological problems due to communication problems should also be considered.
In addition to the unfortunate situation that the Armenians find themselves in, the movie also shows have brave and wise they are, compared to the Turks. In the Van uprising and other conflict scenes, the Armenians are shown fighting with antique rifles, while Turks have the most modern European weapons. Additionally, Turks’ numerical superiority is also pointed out. Armenian youths running through the fires, bravery of Armenian children are also shown to emphasize the courage of the Armenian people. Moreover, in one of Ani’s statements, “‘heroic Van’s defense’ is said to be one of the most glorious episodes of Armenian history”.
Another group who is portrayed as brave is Western missionaries and other representatives of Western nations. In many scenes, American missionary Ussher stakes his own life in order to protect Armenians. He ignores all of the threats made by the ‘brutal governor of Van’ Cevdet Bey and by not handing over the Armenians living within the region where his missionary is located to the Turks, saves many Armenian lives. Again, it is strange that a German woman is shown to be a witness to ‘Turkish brutality’. These characters are installed in the movie as representatives of civilization. However, it is well known that these same countries were the main reasons behind the unfortunate events that caused many Turkish and Armenian lives, and were accused by Armenians of leaving them to their fate. The reason why Westerners are shown as brave as well as Armenians might be due to box office worries. The appearance of a German flag right in the middle of the movie seems to be for reemphasizing the Hitler-Turks connotation. It seems like they are trying to say that even Germans were witnesses to ‘Turkish barbarity’.
Scenes That Portray Turks as ‘Barbarians’
We mentioned earlier that all through the movie, Turks are portrayed not as human being but more like creature that are incapable of perpetrating nothing but cruelty. While this attitude is present all through the movie, some scenes openly reveal this purpose. That’s why in this section we have decided to list all the scenes that include such statements. Our purpose here is not to criticize the movie. This list will make us understand the thought process and intentions of the director.
- “Missionary Ussher speaks: ‘We’re besieged by Turks, we’re run out supplies, and most of us will die. The crowd needs a miracle. This child is bleeding to death. I can save his life, it will give us the spirit to continue. Martin points to a woman, still in character, sobbing as she holds her child’s hand. ‘This is his mother. She’s seen the rest of her family massacred. Her pregnant daughter was raped in front of her eyes, just before her stomach was slashed open to stab her unborn child. Her husband had his testicles cut off and stuffed into his mouth.’
- “Martin as Ussher (voice over): ‘I a field of cinders where Armenian life was still dying, a German woman, trying not to cry, told me the horror she witnessed…A few days before, a German woman sits in front of Ussher. She recounts her story as Ussher continues his voice over… Martin as Ussher (V.O): ‘I must tell you what I saw, so people will understand the crimes men do to men. It was Sunday morning, the first useless Sunday dawning on the corpses. I went to the balcony of my window, and saw a dark crowd in the courtyard lashing a group of young women…
- “From her window, the German woman witnesses the following scene… Martin as Ussher (Continuing his voice over entry) ‘An animal of a man shouted, “You must dance, dance when the drum beats!” With fury the whips cracked on the flesh of the women. Hand in hand the brides began their circle dance… “Dance!”, they raved, “Dance till you die, dance with bare breasts, without shame…” One of the women stripped naked… The women collapsed. “Get up!” the crowd screamed, brandishing their swords. Then someone brought a jug of kerosene. The brides were anointed. “Dance!”, they thundered, “Here’s a fragrance sweeter than any perfume.” One of the men in the distance approaches the gas-soaked women with a flaming torch. It is thrown at the terrified women.”
- “… With a torch they set the naked brides on fire. And the charred bodies rolled and tumbled to their deaths.” Martin takes a pause, then continues. “The German woman looked at me and said, ‘How shall I dig these eyes of mine? Tell me, how?”
- “A horrfying image. A crowd of people are being lead into the banks of a river, where a group of Turkish guards is shooting at them. The people plead for mercy, as they fall into the bloody waters. The camera tracks along this mass of dead bodies until it arrives at a cart where a Turkish soldier is raping a young woman. This camera moves close to the anguished woman’s arm, following it down to her hand. The young mother is holding the hand of her terrified eight year old girl, who is hiding underneath of the cart. The girl is fighting back her tears, trying to comfort her mother by kissing her finger while she is savaged above her.” Edward (V.O): “My mother never talked about what happened during the march. Only one story…”.
-
- “Ali is playing Jevdet Bey, instructing a soldier on the finer points of his favorite means of torture. He selects a small horseshoe from a tray of horseshoes presented to him. Behind him, Sevan is held by a large soldier. Sevan is bare foot. Jevdet Bey: ‘I want you to remember that this has to be nailed into the ball of the hell. Not the sole.’ Jevdet Bey places the horseshoe onto Sevan’s bare foot. Jevdet ey (Cont’d): ‘There’s no bone in the sole. It’s fall off. Alright?’ The soldier nods and disappears from the office with the captive Sevan. From a adjoining room, Sevan’s screams are heard as this horrific torture administered on the young boy off screen. Jevdet Bey settles into his chair to read the letter from Ussher that has been found. The terrified Young Gorky is seated in front of him. Ali as Jevdet Bey: ‘An appeal for Christian help. Does your missionary think we are such monsters? If we had such a hatred for you Chriastians, would we allowed you to keep your churches?We have invested the Greeks and Armenians with power and freedom. You should be thankful.’
- ‘Young Gorky and Sevan are running in the besieged city of Van. They are running through the people massacred in the street. Turkish soldiers are pillaging the shops…’…Sevan’s screams of pain continue in the background. Suddenly, they come to a stop.”
- ‘Hundreds of bodies are strewn along the side of the road. Dogs fight with each other over the carcass of a child. On a makeshift gallows, the bodies of men dangling ; a mother wails under the suspended body of her murdered son. Ussher (played by Martin) is walking through this street in Van, witnessing the carnage. Beside him, Xoung Groky carries an American flag.”
- “Philip: “How much he suffered. Losing his family. His mother dying of starvation in his arms…”
In addition to these, in some parts of the movie there are the forced walks of thousands of people through the desert, bodies torn up by animals and other similar scenes portray Armenians as the victims of a terrible massacre. Egoyan in these scenes focuses on the pains of the Armenians. He describes the 1915 events as a pure genocide with no proof or document. He also does not need to look at the Turkish people’s pain though about a million Turkish people lost their life after the armed Armenian attacks.
These scenes portray Turks more like inhuman creatures then human beings and this is similar to the way Turks were perceived in the middle ages. It is a race, which can easily burn people and who does not a single good member. It is obvious that the root of these perceptions comes from history. It is not the figment of Egoyan’s imagination. Western sources describing Mehmet II’s conquest of Istanbul, Ottoman governance in the Balkans and Egoyan’s portrayal of Turks are so similar that it seems to come from one source. All these show how little they know the Turks. Perceptions full of images and preconceptions result in a fear from the unknown. In this context, Turks are perceived as the amalgamation of the two principle enemies of Europe. These are unbelievers coming from the step and Muslims. From this perspective, Turks have no culture but are very strong and have the willingness to carry out barbarity. Gladstone’s ‘judgment’ about the Turkish race is an obvious example:
“What was the Turkish race and what is it now? This is not an issue of Islam, but the amalgamation of Islam with the characteristics of o race. Turks, ever since they stepped foot on European soil, have been an example of inhumanity. Wherever they went they left a bloody trail behind, and wherever their rule reached civilization disappeared.”
These and similar arguments were also used by European authors during the Greek and Bulgarian uprisings. Most of these books were written without visiting the regions. In other words, Europe has fixed opinions about the relations between Turks and Christian minorities and characters used by Egoyan and his scenes in the movie are just the usual European attitude towards Europe. However, horrifying scenes in Ararat’s script are still very exaggerated. It is quite probable that a child or a youth, even a typical middle-aged person could suffer psychological damage by watching the movie.
‘Anatolia: Lost Armenian Lands’
Another point constantly expressed in the movie of Ararat is that Anatolia is the Armenian homeland. According to the movie Anatolia was Armenian until it was ‘lost’ in 1915. In this way, it is similar to Jewish myth that even though they had not lived there for the centuries they would one-day return to Palestine (Promised Land). In other words the film implies that Anatolia is belong to the Armenians, and it is ‘Armenians’ promised lands’. For example, Raffi in the movie goes to Eastern Anatolia in order to find himself and to face his past. His statements and observations include reflections about these lost Armenian lands. In one scene in front of the ruins of a church, Raffi says:
“When I see these places, I realize how much we’ve lost. Not just the land and the lives, but the loss of any way to remember it. I here is nothing here to prove that anything ever happened.”
As seen here, Egoyan does not question the truth of the ‘Armenian genocide’ in the film, Ararat. Raffi is certain, as he talks about the extent of the massacres and genocide. There is also the lost lands and destroyed Armenian identity. It is reported that after Raffi utters these words, there will be a scene showing hundreds of tired people walking slowly in the desert. This upsetting scene includes Gorky and his mother. An exhausted woman and her son she is protecting. From the script we cannot distinguish if this scene is a part of the main movie or the film Edward is recoding. As a result both films merge. In an interview Egoyan said that this was his objective and he sometimes could not differentiate between the movies. This style ensures that the message is conveyed without any contrary argument and prevents any opposition of Egoyan to be voiced.
Prejudices Hidden by Art
If we compare Ararat with the other movies, we can say that Egoyan has used a more intelligent style than the Midnight Express. He does not try to prove his opinions in a coarse language. He uses all of the tools available to cinema and modern art to draw the viewer. Every trick of the trade is used to confuse the viewer. No one can tell which is real and which is fiction. However, the movie also uses all the prototypes and preconceptions that have remained for centuries. In summary, if the messages conveyed by the movie are summarized, Ararat can be seen a product of hate and historical, political prejudices aiming a certain political aim.
B. THE NAME (ARARAT) AND SYMBOLS USED
After examining the script in detail, the purpose of the movie comes out clearly with the name and the symbols used in the movie. We cannot be sure if Ararat is going to be a success or not, but we can be sure that its name alone will stay in the minds of many people. Every body including those who have no knowledge about the problems between Armenians and Turks know Mount Ararat, famous for being Noah’s Ark’s resting place. The intention of Egoyan and the producers of the movie is just that.
Another theme, which is repeated all through the movie, is the citing of religious myths. First is Noah’s Ark. When first considered, there is no direct connection between the script of the movie and the great flood. Only in scene 6, in which David talks Philip and Ali about his present to his grandson Tony, a toy Noah’s ship. However, the rest of the movie is full of references to the myth and the message is clear:
“We will rise again, just like Noah’s children.”
Another symbol frequently used is Christianity. Knowing that most of the viewers are going to be Christians, Egoyan and his associates try to reveal the fact that Armenian are, like Americans and Europeans, members of the Christian faith. On the other hand, the fact that Turk’s believe in a different religion is shown with showing distinctly different symbols. This is clearly seen in the movie when a German and an American start to document the ‘Armenian massacres’ that happened during the Van uprising. There is a virtual separation of civilization between Turks and the rest of the world. What's more, the direct association shown between Armenian society and Christianity is an approach that supports their objective.
Because the clichés and symbols used to represent the Turks were mentioned earlier, we will not examine them here in detail.
C. DIRECTOR AND ACTORS
Director: Atom Egoyan
For Atom Egoyan, Ararat is his personal project, one of his most important ambitions and a big responsibility. The main objective of Egoyan and the producers is for the movie to receive awards at the festivals it attends and to be nominated for an Oscar. In other words, Egoyan is working much harder in this project than he did in his earlier work. This will be an important factor for the publicity and the success of this move. Egoyan says, about the movie:
“Ararat is the project that has consumed me for the last two years and on which I spent most of my time. Most of my time in the last two years was taken up by writing the script, casting the actors and to find enough information for recording a drama. My brain is full of images that I am going to use in the film…”
Egoyan allowing journalists on the set and to publicize the movie before it is in the market, which he had never done before, shows how much importance he gives to Ararat.
However, the movie’s importance, for Egoyan and his associates, is not related to their expectations for high box office returns or artistic satisfaction. More importantly, Ararat is a movie with a mission. The reason behind Egoyan’s statement that this movie was not a story but a responsibility is this. In this context, Egoyan has expectations from this film. His first objective is to make the world accept that the ‘Armenian genocide’ in fact took place. According to Egoyan, the viewers should observe the scenes in the movie not as fiction but as facts. Egoyan summarizes the situation as:
‘Ararat will turn some heads and will force open some eyes… I hope Ararat will make the viewer accept the Armenian Genocide not as fiction but as a fact…’
Egoyan’s second objective is to make Turkey accept the Armenian accusations and to change her stance:
‘I was invited to Istanbul many times. They know about this movie. I am very optimistic about Turkey accepting the fact that Armenian Holocaust really took place in the near future.’
According to Egoyan, Ararat will eventually be shown in Turkey. In this context, we can say that the screening of the movie in Turkey can be considered as one of the objectives of Egoyan.
The Cast
When we look at the cast, we see that the movie was made for a broad audience and to attract the media. Bruce Greenwood, Eric Bogosian, Christopher Plummer, Elias Koteas, David Alpay, Raffi Migdesyan and French singer-actor Charles Aznavour are among the cast. The inclusion of familiar faces in the cast might be a useful addition for the promotion and success of the movie. Canadian actor Bruce Greenwood was noticed when he played President Kennedy in Thirteen Days. Greenwood also played in Exotica and The Sweet Hereafter. Plummer, as known, is an established actor with a film career spanning decades. His awards include an Emmy and many other accomplishments. He has a wide audience in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. Another established name is Aznavour, who is the legendary French singer-actor. Aznavour, who has hundreds of albums, is the son of an Armenian family from Paris.
According to one of the actors, Raffi Migdesyan, Ararat is going to be an ‘Armenian Shindler’s List’.
Charles Aznavour
Aznavour, who plays the director in Ararat, is an important character for our study. Therefore his career will be evaluated in detail. Aznavour is an accomplished French artist. Charles Aznavour, who is considered as one of the giants of the music world, is the son of a Turkish Armenian couple. He says that his mother comes from Adapazarı, a Turkish province. His artistic interests started when he was nine years old, with dancing. In 1950s he became well known as the ‘melancholic singer of romantic songs’. It is reported that he has hundreds of albums. The artist, who could sing in five different languages (French, Italian, English, Spanish and Armenian), also became famous for his acting abilities. His first movie was Le Tete Contre les Murs (1959). In his later film, his admirers could usually see him playing his piano. Aznavour moved to Switzerland in 1976. When we examine Charles Aznavour’s interest in the Armenian problem and Ararat, we see that he describes himself as ‘firstly a French artist’. However, Aznavour was always aware of his Armenian identity and never refrained from putting it to the forefront. The artist, who supports the Armenian accusations whole-heartedly, would like Turkey’s attitude to change. An interview with Aznavour in 2000 reveals his opinions about the issue:
‘Q: Your mother is from Turkey. Did her relatives suffer during the 1915 ‘genocide’?
Charles Aznavour: They did not suffer, they disappeared and they died. We could never again hear from them. What happened was genocide and they were among the victims.
(…)
Q: Recently, The French Senate passed a resolution accepting the Armenian genocide and this angered Turkey. How do regard this?
Charles Aznavour: I think this is just about time. I believe that all countries eventually have to acknowledge what happened. Firstly Turkey. Germany accepted what it had done. France is still acknowledging her part wrongs. Many other countries have also done the same. Today’s Turks are not responsible for the past events. However to refuse to accept what happened in the past is odd…
Q: We both know that your album was banned in turkey. Why do you think that happened?
Charles Aznavour: It was long ago. It was when I wrote the song ‘Is Sont Tompés’ (They will lose’. I mentioned genocide in the song. However, I did not say who the victims were or who perpetrated the crime. Consequently, the ban was a mistake.
Q: What happened after the ban. You are very popular in turkey.
Charles Aznavour: I never said anything bad about the Turks and never will… There was nothing against Turks in the song. When something bad happens to a Turkish family in Germany, I get very upset. I hate these kinds of things. I am happy that my relationship with Turks in France is good. Turks here treat me well. They have been a great immigrant community in the country until now.
Q: Can you tell us what happened after your song ‘Is Sont Tompés’ was banned in Turkey?
Charles Aznavour: My photos on some documents were crossed. My photos for years were published this way. I was banned in Turkey. However, every time I met a Turk in UK or France, I fell in love with their food. It was just like Armenian food. I also frequently go to Turkish restaurants and I always was shown great courtesy. As you know Turks and Armenians share many characteristics. Even though I am an Armenian from Turkey, I do not deny it… I do not know when the ban was lifted. One day someone told me that he saw my cassettes in Turkey and then I knew the ban was lifted.
Q: If you were invited to turkey for a concert, would you go?
Charles Aznavour: No. I would accept it under one condition. Only if the invitation were an official one, I would go. They often ask me anyway, for film festivals and etc. However, my answer is always the same. If I am officially invited, for example by the Culture Ministry, I will go. That way, they will be excepting my stance and will be face to face with the situation.’
Aznavour, as seen from the interview above, reveals his extreme Armenian identity, repeats the accusations of Armenian groups and reveal that his attitude is politically much more extreme than his words. In other words, he is an activist besides being an artist. For example, he distributes the assistance and donations he collects in Armenia. He pays visits Armenia regularly and has meetings with many top officials including the President and the Prime Minister. He is also considered an important political individual. He participates in many Armenian propaganda activities. He usually does not appear on the screen but his support and statements provide significant assistance to the Armenian propaganda network. Another incident that shows his extreme nature is his refusal to give concerts for the French Senate, because they had not recognized the Armenian accusations.
Aznavour, who previously was reported to take part in the movie Komitas, said that Ararat was not a movie of accusations:
‘This movie does not point any fingers. It is just about a person who is trying to make a movie on the borders of Turkey. That’s the whole of the story.’
Aznavour argues that the film, Ararat is not a propaganda film and it does not contain any accusation for Turkey. However after the premier of the film he clearly claimed some parts of the Republic of Turkey are Armenian territories:
‘If they like to give us a gift, they can donate us the Armenian side of the Mount Ararat, which the Turks do not use it’.
D. A Movie Supported by Armenia
Ararat, even before it’s recording started, had generated many disputes. The objective and the importance of the movie cannot be understood without examining the environment from which it was born, because that environment was very sensitive. Armenian lobbies saw 2000 and 2001 as the time to complete their objectives related to the Armenian genocide. After their successes in various states of the United States and in France, in passing a resolution acknowledging the Armenian genocide, the Armenian lobbies concentrated on the USA and other western countries. Another change of strategy at that time was the intensification of equating the Jewish Holocaust with the allegations of ‘Armenian genocide’. The term ‘Armenian genocide’ was replaced with the ‘Armenian holocaust’ by the radical Armenian groups in time. The Armenian campaigns on the Jewish Holocaust Remembrance Day, in particular was an organized and thought provoking activity to present the 1915 events as similar to the Jewish Holocaust. The 1700th anniversary of Armenians accepting Christianity in 2001 was another coincidence that could be used for the propaganda purposes. The Pope’s first visit to the Armenian Church was seen as a significant occasion to spread the Armenian allegations in the international arena. However, 11 September terrorist assaults ruined all the plans. The campaign had to be postponed to 2002.
Even though we have no proof, Ararat coming at a time when the Armenian propaganda mechanism was so active raises some suspicions. Canadian media reported that Atom Egoyan started to write the script of Ararat around the time that the Armenian lobbies were internationally very active. Another reason that strengthens the suspicions about Ararat is that the idea that making a movie that dealt with 1915 was first voiced at a meeting of an Armenian association, in order to promote the Armenian allegations. Atom Egoyan’s visit to Armenia in 6 December 2001, his meeting with Armenia’s Culture Minister Roland Sharoyan and Sharoyan’s statement that Armenian government would continue to support the project, proves that Ararat is not solely a Canadian venture. During the same visit, Atom Egoyan and the Armenian Government also signed an agreement to cooperate in the future. Another fact that proves that Ararat is a part of a wider Armenian campaign is that the director defends Armenian accusations and attends meetings of the Armenian associations that promote such opinions. So much so that Egoyan carried his radical beliefs to the political arena. For example in February 1999, Egoyan started a public duel with a Liberal member of the Canadian Parliament, who said that they had doubts that the events of 1915 could be considered genocide.
E. Recording Stage
First news about the recording of the movie started to trickle out during the spring of 2001. Recordings done in Toronto and Alberta started in May 2001. Egoyan said at the time that he applied for permission to do some scenes in Turkey, but was not hopeful that his application would be approved. Armenian and Canadian media announced the start of recording as “famous director, Atom Egoyan, is making a movie that tells the story of the period when Turks massacred Armenians” or “the film that portrays the Armenian Holocaust”. Pre-recording preparations show that the movie is going to be impressive and have a large budget. Firstly, a large historical Van was constructed near the Ontario Lake (Canada). Mr X Inc. construction of the city was a very laborious and expensive. The reproduced city of Van includes Mosques, Churches, Governmental Residence and other governmental buildings. This reproduction seems so real that, journalists visiting the recording stated that they felt that they were in Turkey of 1915 right in the middle of today’s Canada. Dennis Berardi, the head of the company, said the set would be made even more realistic when it is presented with the help of 3D animation programs. In other word, Egoyan and his team created an imagined history with no archival documents and the press presented the scenes as if they are the real events.
Mount Ararat being one of the central themes of the movie was reproduced using wood. In order to record the scenes with many dead bodies, 150 extras were used. It is reported that the number of dead people increased to thousands with the help of computer animation. The number of Turkish soldiers increased in the film from hundreds to thousands by the same technique used in the movie Gladiator. ‘Thousand killed by the Turkish soldiers in the fields’ shown the frequently. In one of the scenes, a hungry child walks among these corpses. According to the script, this child is the childhood of one of the characters in the movie. Scenes include corpses scattered around the streets, children hanging from poles and naked and raped women’s corpses. These scenes attracted the Western media before showing. This attraction is due to these striking scenes, associations created between the so-called Armenian Genocide and Jewish Holocaust and Mount Ararat. Armenians for long years have promoted the mountain as the resting place of Noah’s ark and now they are seeing the results of their efforts in this movie. Events taking place around this illustrious mountain has attracted many people, and the propagandist groups have abused this interest.
The details of the movie completed by the autumn of 2001. Atom Egoyan visited Armenia in December 2001 in order to select the soundtrack of the movie. While the visit was promoted as being only for selecting the soundtrack, meetings with many high rank officials and press statements point towards a different objective. The most important detail of the soundtrack is that, an Armenian Turk also was involved in the process. Arto Tunç acknowledging that he helped in the process claimed in an interview with Hürriyet daily that the movie was not anti-Turkish. He said that in the sections of the script given to him, there was nothing that could offend Turks or Turkey and that the opinions about the movie were mostly exaggerated. While Arto Tunç composing a song for Ararat was found to be odd by many, the angriest reaction came from the newspaper Star. Star said that Tunç was deceiving the Turkish media with his statements and music lovers in Turkey were criticizing his actions. Star reported that Tunç’s last few concerts in Istanbul were nearly empty. The first point to consider is why Egoyan picked a Turkish citizen for the music of his movie. His reason might have been to attract the Turkey’s Armenian community towards his side, or to divide the Turkish and Armenians in Turkey about the Ararat movie. As will be seen Turkish and Armenian reaction regarding the film was similar after the Cannes premier. Both declared that the film is a propaganda film and destructive for the relations. It clearly shows that the Ararat team failed to get the support of Turkish Armenians.
F. WHO IS FINANCING THE MOVIE?
When the financing of the movie is examined, the Turkish suspicions about the movie being a propaganda tool becomes stronger. The producers of the movie are Atom Egoyan, Alliance Atlantis Communications company and Robert Lantos, who has been a long-time supporter of Egoyan. However it is known that these producers can hardly afford the reported movie budget of 50 million dollars. If the earlier movies of Egoyan is examined, we see that his most expansive movies, Exotica and Sweet Hereafter, had a budget of around 5 million dollars. If we consider that almost none of Egoyan’s movies have been profitable and that he has usually made his movies with government grants, it is obvious that not many corporations would finance his movies for profit. Egoyan usually had very limited resources when making a movie. For instance, he could construct his first full set in 1999, for Felicia’s Journey. We can see that political and other considerations had entered the agenda in the financing of Ararat. In other words, Egoyan making a movie that has a budget, which is ten times his previous most expensive film, cannot be explained only with his own resources. According to the reports leaked to the media, the French Government provided a large part of the budget. Additionally, it is believed that some financing was received from the Canadian movie assistance funds. The producers also expect revenues from the awards the movie can win in the Canadian movie festivals. In addition to the director and the actors in the movie, Canadians and Canadian State Agencies have provided significant moral and financial support. A large amount of capital was received by selling the distribution rights of the movie. Even before the recording of the movie was finished, American company Miramax bought the distribution rights of the movie. According to Turkish journalist Erdal Bilallar, Miramax is a sub-company of Walt Disney and usually distributes movies that Walt Disney is afraid of distributing due to various reasons. Some distribution companies had also purchased the right to distribute the movie in Italy, Russia, Greece, France, Singapore and Israel before the movie was completed. This also provided significant amount of funds for the movie.
Lastly, donations made by the Armenians, who see this movie as a part of the Armenian national defense, is maybe the most important source of funding. In addition to the direct funding, many Canadian Armenian actors choose to take part in the movie for free and some Armenian associations donating hardware used in the movie, made available unused fund that could be transferred to other sections of the movie making process. In addition to voluntary participation, workings of a professional Armenian network can also be felt in the movie. According to Ambassador Ömer Engin Lütem, the annual budget of Armenians who try to prove their allegations is around 50 million dollars. Lütem says that this capital is used for creating pieces in cinema, theatre, meetings, literature, advertising and etc. and that this amount of money is the principle source of many for the creation of the most important propaganda tools. These figures do not include donations made in-kind and volunteers’ support. In this way, we can easily surmise that Ararat, just like Mayrik in early 1990s, has also received its slice of the propaganda cake. The Armenian government has also announced its support for the film. While, the scale of the budget is indeterminate, it is interesting to note that the movie is coming out as a State sponsored film.
G. ARARAT’S EFFECTS IN THE WEST AND THE REACTIONS
As mentioned earlier, first reactions about the movie arose from the magazine media. The movie, which was reported to portray “the massacre of 1.5 million people by Turks, just because they were Christians”, attracted great attention. In all of the articles about the movie, it was reported that “while what Jews had to endure in Hitler’s Germany was known, so-called Armenian genocide was an unfamiliar”. Another common feature of these articles is “their gradual replacement of the phrase Armenian genocide with Armenian holocaust”. It can be argued that these newspaper articles try to establish the basis to persuade the Western public opinion for the so-called Armenian genocide as the second holocaust in history. In art and film magazines, the movie’s story has been described as ‘being about the 1915 - 1917 Armenian holocaust, in which Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians’. The movie was also promoted as being ‘taken from a true story’. In another article, the so-called Armenian genocide is compared to a more recent event: ‘You lost four thousand people on September 11th, we lost three quarters of our nation to the genocide’. It is obvious that the radical Armenian groups aim to abuse the American tragedy to take advantage against the Turkish argument.
Another frequently made mistake in most articles about Ararat is about Mount Ararat itself. In many American and Canadian articles, Mount Ararat is said to be located either in today’s Armenia or in ‘historical Armenia’. In many articles Eastern Anatolia is described as ‘historical Armenia’ or ‘Armenia’ alone. An opinion from a journalist about another movie says that the city of Van was completely destroyed after the events of 1915. There are such statements in the introduction of the movie that a person is left with an image that the reason why the city of Van was reproduced in Canada was because the city was completely wiped out by the Turks. We can only guess that this is a part of a conscious propaganda campaign because Van city is now one of major cities in Eastern Turkey, and the Mount Ararat is in the Turkish territories.
Commentaries made by Canadian journalist Kirkland show how worrying the perception of the Western media is towards this movie:
“…This bucolic scene belies the true nature of what will come in 1915 -- a wholesale massacre of at least 600,000 people (according to Encyclopedia Britannica) and the expulsion of an equal number as Turkey reacts, in a way of racism, to the outbreak of World War I. Massacres of Armenians had been happening since 1895, but this was the biggest.
It is the first mass genocide of the 20th century, a horror which is rarely acknowledged, Egoyan said. That's why he feels his movie is such a responsibility. Armenians have been waiting for a major film on the subject for decades.”
If we come to the artistic and technical reactions, the 90-page script, which came out before the movie has generated positive comments. Some questions were asked about Egoyan’s command of historical facts, but usually this was overlooked. Another point to consider is that even in web sites dealing with artistic reviews, there are links to web sites that advance the Armenian cause of so-called genocide. Additionally, providing one-sided historical guidance has increased, as the date for the public première of the movie gets nearer. For example in the Upcomingmovies internet site in between information and review of the movie, there is sentence stating that ‘Remembrance of the Genocide day is 24th of April, which is the day the killings started’. Unfortunately this is not the only site that promotes this issue.
In summary, Egoyan’s movie appeared widely in the Western media, even before it was completed and reviews usually repeat the Armenian version of events. The film, even before completion, is successfully performing its duty as a propaganda tool. That’s why Western critics are comparing the movie with Shindler’s List. Additionally, many people share the view that Ararat is going to be Egoyan’s most successful movie until now.
On the other hand, not only the movie but also the reaction the movie is getting from the media in Turkey, is watched with interest in the western media. For example, the French Le Monde on February 7, 2002, stated that Turks were comparing the movie with the ‘midnight Express’. The same article also included the Armenian accusations and reported that the Turkish Foreign Ministry was preparing a response to the film.
CHAPTER 4
REACTION TO ARARAT WITHIN TURKEY
‘This movie is a racist and instigates hate… The film was not made for artistic purposes but solely for disparage Turkey’
İstemihan Talay, Culture Minister of Turkey
‘I know many will not share my opinion. There might even be people who accuse me of treason. However, to judge Egoyan’s deep and impressive script by questioning if it is anti or pro-Turkish is meaningless. I wrote earlier that when Turkey watches this movie, she should ask herself whether or not the movie is racist. No, this movie is the antithesis of racism.’
İsmet Berkan, Radikal, İstanbul daily
When we examine Turkey’s reaction to Ararat, we immediately notice how uninformed she is about the issue. As the movie was being made, there were some occasional reports about the movie. The number of these news and opinions increased in the summer of 2001. However, after September 11, Armenian issue was ‘forgotten’. This state continued until the Armenian resolutions started to pass from various parliaments. In other words, in order to understand the seriousness of the situation, months had to pass.
We can divide reactions coming out of Turkey into two categories: those who panic and those who just discount its possible ramifications.
Those who say ‘Ararat is a disaster for Turkey’: According to this group, a second ‘Midnight Express’ is coming and Turkey should do something about it. If not, Turkey will suffer irreparable consequences. The biggest handicap of this group is that they do not put forward a serious suggestion for what to do. Some suggest that Turkey should make a movie that conveys her version of events, while others believe that this would not be useful. Suggestions from this group include, protesting the film, boycott the products of the producers and distributors of the movie, sending protest letters and etc. People included in this group are Erdal Bilallar, Fatih Çekirge, Melih Aşık, Murat Birsel and Zeynep Gürcanlı.
Those who say ‘We have nothing to fear from Ararat’: Those who belong in this group have two divergent views. Those who share the first view believe that the possible repercussions of the film are exaggerated. They say that these type of movies are made for Germany, Japan and etc, and do not have that much influence on the public psyche. They say this is just a movie. They also object to interference in art. In other words, they have liberal beliefs, and object to any state campaigning against an Armenian or Turkish film. For example, journalist-author Ertuğrul Özkök goes further to proposes that the première of the movie to be made in Turkey, next to the Mount Ararat. According to Özkök, the affects of movies are exaggerated:
‘Egoyan is a director I really like and I am wondering whether he will fall in to the trap of a depicting a crude genocide representation. In the past, many Armenian directors fell into this trap. For example Henri Verneuil made such a movie in the 1990s. Did you ever hear about it? It was called ‘Mayrig’. Today, when people talk about Henri Verneuil, no one remembers Mayrig. There are many films by Verneuil that you can remember. However, the movie he considered to be his life’s work, the movie that was based on his own family, is ignored. Why? The answer is easy. It was a bad movie. It was biased. It was merciless. All through the movie you could notice elements of bad propaganda…’
Ertuğrul Özkök says that the affects of Ararat should not be exaggerated and he wonders if Egoyan will fall into the trap of a depicting a crude genocide representation. However, Egoyan has already made some statements that clear any doubt. The use of the phrase ‘Armenian holocaust’ in all the introductory statements of the movie, shows that there is no doubt about the stance of Egoyan. Additionally, in an interview with cinema magazine called Beyaz Perde, he says that genocide accusations have to be acknowledged by Turkey. On other words, Egoyan’s aim is to force Turkey to accept the genocide crime, instead of portraying the pain and suffering both people experienced and to mend the relations between the nations. Interestingly, he does not hide his objectives.
Mehmet Barlas, Turkish columnist, who agrees with Özkök, re-addresses Turkey’s all foreign policy issues by using ‘Ararat’. He argues that Turkey’s policies towards Cyprus, Armenia and etc. are made without consulting with the nation. He defends a line of thought that is very risky to some issues that Turkey considers as national objectives:
‘Ertuğrul Özkök’s article was a breath of fresh air among all these fanatical, obsessive and even semi-militarist commentaries. Özkök, in summary, was asking, what would happen if Atom Egoyan’s movie Ararat’s première was done in Turkey? Then and there, we can close a chapter and face the future all together…
As I was reading his article, I was jealous of Özkök… I can only assume that you also are sick and tired of whom in the world we have to get angry with and who we have to ignore... To be responsible for an unknown history and to be hostile to the world, because of it. To defend the ‘National issues’ that some people had chosen irrespective of us. To continually ignore the universal human values… Yes… ‘Why should we be afraid of Ararat?’”
The questions raised by Mehmet Barlas cannot be ignored easily and in some ways they are even more radical than Taner Akçam. There could be problems in national participation in foreign policy decisions, some radical steps might have to be taken in order to re-interpret the Turkish history, but all these ‘deficiencies’ do not legitimize Barlas’s opinions. The point that both Ertuğrul Özkök and Mehmet Barlas has ignored is that the problem is constantly brought up by the Armenians and that they are the ones who run away from dialog and use history for propaganda purposes. In other words, the radical Armenians are trying to portray the Turks as a race, which committed genocide. The issue is more to acquire financial and moral benefits than to use liberal and democratic principles in order to get to the bottom of disputed historical arguments. The benefits acquired by the Jews after the Holocaust, is seen by the Armenians as a nice prospect and they have tried to follow the same route. However, their efforts are to first form an attitude and then to construct a fictional history according to their stance.
Serdar Turgut, columnist, is also one of the journalists who think that the movie has been exaggerated. Turgut, in a mocking way, concludes that the Government’s efforts in this way are based on a ‘narrow minded nationalist chauvinism’.
The most extreme opinions in this group have been voiced by İsmet Berkan, columnist. Berkan, contrary to Özkök, had obtained a copy of the script and had even published some of it in Radikal, İstanbul daily, has strangely praised the movie. According to Berkan, Ararat is more a movie of explorations than a movie of accusations. He acknowledges reading all the above-mentioned scenes and says:
“There is undoubtedly many scenes that might cause reactions from turkey. However, these belong to a movie within a movie… Movie can be viewed as an insider’s view of the Armenian diaspora.”
Berkan’s most surprising statement is that he does not consider Ararat as being an anti-Turkish movie. In a previous paragraph he says that the movie is not a pro-Turkish movie. Later he asks, “Is it an anti-Turkish movie? Let me immediately tell you. No.” In other words, Berkan tells us that the movie is neither anti nor pro-Turkish. He must have realized how extreme his words are, because he finishes his article with the following sentences:
“I know many will not share my opinion. There might even be people who accuse me of treason. However, to judge Egoyan’s deep and impressive script by questioning if it is anti or pro-Turkish is meaningless. I wrote earlier that when Turkey watches this movie, she should ask herself whether or not the movie is racist. No, this movie is the antithesis of racism.”
It should be noted that the author finds the statements made by Mr. Berkan as ‘extreme’ and ‘beyond reason’. No Turkish citizen is authorized to accuse Mr. Berkan of treason. Additionally, to accuse your opposition of treason is not a healthy or correct approach. Reactions to his opinions until now have been mostly on his side and nobody has accused him of being traitor. This must have surprised him (!). However, while many books that support the Armenian accusations have been published and translated into Turkish, the Armenians have not permitted the publication of a single book that supports the Turkish version overseas. This demonstrates the maturity of Turkey with respect to the Armenian problem. However, one wonders if he had known of Egoyan’s opinions and his objectives in making this film, would it have altered Berkan’s statements. While İsmet Berkan’s call for common sense is very important, from time to time his writings seem more like an advertisement for the film, Ararat.
When we generally examine the opinions that do not consider Ararat as a danger to Turkey, we realize that they are usually reactions against some domestic issues rather than to the film itself. Those who defended the movie Salkım Hanımın Taneleri see themselves as more liberal and now feel like they have to defend Ararat because of their previous statements. We think that these two issues are mutually exclusive.
Some in this second group think that the movie might be a nuisance to Turkey, but think that the Turkish Government’s uncontrolled reaction will make the movie more successful. For example, Nedim Hazar from Zaman daily says that Egoyan’s movie Calendar was a preparation for Ararat, and that it had not attracted that much attention. He warns that extreme reactions from Turkey would attract more people to the film. The point Hazar repeatedly addresses is that Turkey’s responses are usually limited to sudden burst of reactions instead of productively fighting against Armenian propaganda.
“I don’t know why we like to block or react, instead of producing. While we argue about what to produce or what we have produced, we cannot become as single minded and sensitive as others…”
Another commentator Haluk Şahin says that the best answer to Ararat would be to ignore it. The real objective of Armenians is to create a panic among the Turks and force them to make mistakes, says Şahin. He believes that Armenians are trying to make the Turks promote the movie. Şahin believes that Turkey should not fall into this trap and she should answer Ararat in another domain. Another warning of Haluk Şahin that should not be ignored is that Armenains should be expected to increase the intensity of their insult just before the première of Ararat. This would be done to attract more attention to the movie. According to Şahin, Turkey’s reaction should have been to ignore the movie and to ensure that this incomprehensible movie was a box office flop. Another opinion of Şahin is that a documentary can never attract as much attention as a Hollywood movie. Best answer to a Hollywood movie is another Hollywood movie, says Şahin.
Reactions From the Turkish Art World
Reactions from the Turkish art world centered on making a movie that aired Turkish version of the events. They stated that Turkey should not succumb to dramatic responses and she should take Ararat’s abuses in Turkish stride. For example director of the film, Salkım Hanım’ın Taneleri, Tomris Giritlioğlu, stated that she could make such a movie. Giritlioğlu said that the Turkish State should support such a venture and that the Turkish cinema had enough energy and talent act on this project. Script writer Ömer Lutfi Mete also supports this view. However, he worries if the State provides supports, the movie would have less influence and it would be considered as a propaganda film on the international stage. Halit Refiğ says that Ararat had the power to transform in a negative way how people look at Turks in a broad geography, from Canada to Europe. He also says that the 63 million dollar budget of the movie clearly shows the importance placed on the movie. In the context of these reactions, the best response seems to be to publish a joint statement by the Turkish cinema personalities, and to make them heard internationally, independent of the Turkish State.
Yılmaz Erdoğan, actor and director of the movie Vizontele, is one of the people within the art industry who think that discussions on Ararat are exaggerated:
“Now, they are making a movie called ‘Ararat’. We have become very agitated even before its completion. Let them make the movie, let’s show it here. If it is full of lies, there is nothing to worry. If it is telling the truth, again there is nothing to worry.”
Erdoğan and those with similar opinions state that Ararat should receive the same amount of criticism that any movie does. There should be no extreme reactions. While, there is some accuracy in their opinions, the real problem lies with finding a balance. If we examine Erdoğan’s response we see a certain contradiction between his defense of Egoyan and his extreme reaction towards criticisms of his own movie. Erdoğan unconsciously feels like that any criticism of Egoyan is also directed at him. We can put this to ‘professional solidarity’ and should be ready for similar examples of it all around the world.
Another opinion of the Turkish film industry is not to ban the movie under any conditions. They say that any such action would be ineffective and would damage Turkey’s standing overseas. They say, such a ban would also damage the freedom in artistic expression. As the artists wanted the Turkish Government or any official institution did not take any measure against the film in Turkey. However no company has attempted to show the film in the country until now.
All of the opinions stated above should without doubt be taken seriously. However, as explained below, it is wrong to consider the problems as only a movie. The problem is an Armenian issue and usage of art as a political tool, and it’s solution lies within a broader context. Another opinion, which was made by the famous director-author Zülfü Livaneli, should be stated here. His approach is a more consistent and broad. According to Livaneli, Ararat is a product of a larger campaign and Turkey’s inability to counter such moves opens the way for Armenian activities. He says that as long as Turkey continues to follow this attitude, she will have to face many Ararats in the future.
Reactions Of The State Bodies
When we examine the official responses, we do not see a different approach. While the preparations of the movie has been taking place for a long time, state bodies seem to react only when the news appear in the local media. This is maybe Turkey most important shortcoming. If the movie was discussed by experts and qualified professionals when the movie was first being made, we could have had more hope of answering the criticisms in more healthy and effective way. Unfortunately, at a time when the previews of the movie is generating a lot of negative reaction against Turkey, does not give us enough time to prepare a suitable response.
When we examine the State agencies, we notice that a few teams have been working on a response to the movie. The most important of these agencies are Culture Ministry, Foreign Ministry, General Staff, National Security Council, Higher Education Board (YÖK) and Prime Ministry.
Culture Ministry
The Turkish Culture Ministry, in response to the news that appeared in the media, initiated a serious study about the possible effects of Ararat around autumn-winter of 2001. The conclusion of these studies made Culture Minister İstemihan Talay to make a statement that declared the movie to be racist and instigating hate. According to Talay, it is clear that the film was not made for artistic purposes but solely for disparage Turkey.
The Culture Ministry does not have any plans to make a movie defending the Turkish version of the events. Their responses are listed as: to intensify the promotion of Turkish Art overseas, to increase the number of artistic activities, to hold conferences in order to announce to the world the underlying objectives of Ararat. Another point Talay is depending on is that world will see how racist the movie is and immediately discount its story.
Turkish Parliament
Due to the popularity of the issue, many political parties have made announcements about the movie. Especially deputies coming from Van, Erzurum, Ağrı (Ararat province) and etc., considering their electorate, have protested against the Armenian accusations and the movie. While some demanded to make a movie against Ararat, some other said that the best answer would be to increase the investment flowing to the regions. The demand of deputies of Ağrı (Ararat) to establish a university next to Mount Ararat should be seen in this light. Justice and Development Party (AKP) recommended the restoration of the Armenian Church in Van. AKP Deputy Group leader Hüseyin Çelik, said that this would be the best answer to any possible instigations on the part of Armenians. At the same time, Turkey would show that she does not hate Armenians, he maintained. The Church being an important symbol in the movie, makes the restoration of it a serious proposal that has to be considered.
One of the most active and interested groups that discussed Ararat is the Nationalist Action party (MHP). They constantly tried to obtain information from various government bodies and tried to put the issue on the parliamentary agenda. A Foreign Ministry delegation briefed the MHP deputies on the issue on December 11, 2001. According to information leaked to the press, officials informed the deputies about the costs of making a movie in response to Ararat. It would cost 10 million dollars, they were told.
Prime Ministry
The agency, which comes across, as the most significant body that dealt with Ararat and the Armenian issue, is the Armenian High Commission. It convenes from time to time under the supervision of deputy Prime Minister Devlet Bahçeli. National Security Council is responsible for the managerial aspects of the commission. Bahçeli’s special interest in the subject has made the commission more affective. It is reported that the commission decided to finance a documentary named ‘İnsanlığa Son Mesaj’ (Last Message To Humanity) in February. The movie is going to be made by the Atatürk language institute and it will be distributed overseas by the Foreign Ministry. The documentary will tell the story of Armenian massacres of Turks. The commentator will be a Turkish Armenian Artin Penik. The Foreign Ministry will try to screen the movie in USA, UK, Italy, France, Germany and Belgium. While the idea seem to be well placed, one wonders how effective a tool it can be against Ararat. Additionally, we have to remind the reader that there are many similar Armenian documentaries in the west that are still being sold.
Foreign Ministry
It can be said that the Foreign Ministry’s activities are just like the culture Ministry and that they will be concentrating on informing the western public. In this context, Ottawa, Paris, Washington and London Embassies will be busy in trying to campaign against Ararat. One wonders if they have the necessary personnel and opportunity to perform such a hard task. Turkey’s Ottawa Ambassador Erhan Öğüt sent informative letters to all media agencies after news about the movie was published, but his efforts were not adequate.
Another response discussed within the government circles is to take legal precautions. Foreign Ministry, keeping its past experiences in mind, has tried to be ready for any eventuality. The plan is to file lawsuits against the movie where it is being shown, for inciting hatred and racism. As to be discussed below, most countries have taken legal measures against inciting hatred and racism and there is a possibility that this movie can be blocked in the respect. However, it is reported that the Foreign Ministry, is worried that there is a possibility of loosing the lawsuit and unintentionally promoting the movie. Experiencing such an outcome in Midnight Express in the past, it plans to hold back this plan until the last minute. Another point to consider in such a plan is that legal actions can only filed as personal compensation lawsuits and not as general court case. There are real people who are insulted in the movie and the director and the producers have to answer or that. Additionally, complaints to individual Television Inspection Agencies can also be useful. By using the scenes that depict violence, the screening of the movie on Television might be prevented. While Turkey is uneasy about using legal tools, even a few sentences mentioned in newspapers were enough to worry Egoyan and his associates. No matter how he tried to convey his indifference to such attempts at blocking his movie, his statements clearly show that he is worried.
While other agencies apart from Culture and Foreign Ministries have held some discussions, the existence of any other action plan is not known.
Higher Education Board (YÖK)
YÖK’s studies were limited to scientific assessments and tried to objectively evaluate the issue. Because YÖK is the agency that the public opinion expects the most, they have shown a lot of sensitivity to support many scientific studies concerned about to Ararat and Armenian problem.
Public Opinion
The nation’s reaction is more important than the reactions of the government of the media. The nation’s attitude shifted back and forth from boredom and hate. They are very angry because Turkey cannot explain itself to the West and the West does not want to understand Turkey. Criticisms from the people published in the media, is a case in point. There is significant pressure on the media for a campaign against the movie, even before it starts to be screened.
The people’s reactions also manifest itself on the Internet and in e-mails. Campaigns against the movie are continuing and daily attracted more participants.
The intense anger generated by the movie even before anyone has seen it, can be both a useful and dangerous tool. This anger has to be channeled to proper areas in order to get productive results. However, uncontrolled and emotional reactions tied with anger might have irreparable consequences. It is obvious that the biggest responsibility here is on the government and the media.
Reactions of Turks in Europe and America
The third important group related to our issue is the Turks living overseas. The most intense reactions were expected from these Turks living overseas in Europe, North America and Australia, because they are the ones first to be affected by the negative consequences of Ararat. However, it is surprising to note that apart from some Turkish Association in Canada and the US, there seem to be no one who is aware of the seriousness of the situation.
Canadian Turks, whose numbers exceed 50,000, have closely followed every development about the movie, from day one. The head of Turkish Federations Association Seyhan Nuyan, initially invited the director and his team for lunch in order to inform them about the Turkish version of the events and to form an environment in which bilateral dialog can develop. While these attempts did not bring about significant developments, the most important concern of the association is the indifference shown by Turks in Turkey and all over the world. Canadian Turks expect the Turks to rally against the producers and the distributors of the movie. If we consider that in Germany, Australia and UK, where the Turkish population is much larger than the Armenian community and in USA, France and Canada, where Turks form a significant minority, Turks can do more about this issue.
Reactions After The Premiere
As has been seen before the Cannes premiere of the film, Turkish public and elite was divided into two main groups, and some argued that the film was not a propaganda film and not against Turkey or the Turks. However when the film was shown first time in the Cannes Film Festival (France) on 20 May 2002, almost all agreed on that the film would be a destructive factor in the relations. Interestingly the most negative reactions came from the Turkish Armenians. Hrant Dink, director of the Agos, Armenian daily published in Istanbul, declared that the film is very dangerous for Turkish-Armenian relations and they never expected such a “horrible film” from a well-known Armenian director. Dink further continued:
“This film (Ararat) is very destructive and harmful for Turkish – Armenian relations. This film should not be shown in Turkey. This style used in the film Ararat cannot be our style in writing or in film sector. The words of those who made this film and the film itself contradict. They talk about peace, they talk about dialog, and they burn all the attempts. They destroy the dialog and peace. This cannot be accepted… We had defended that the should be shown in Turkey before the Cannes. However our attitude regarding the film is now just the reverse. A film which includes such terrible scenes should not expected support from us.”
Not only the Turkish Armenians but also the liberals changed their views after the Cannes. For instance Atilla Dorsay, Turkish film director who defended Ararat and Egoyan before the showing, said that his ideas about the film dramatically changed:
“I expected a more serious film from Atom Egoyan, because he is my one of the close friends. However I could not find what I expected from the movie. Actually the film made me shocked. When the director giving the events he uses wild and brutal scenes… Such scenes do not serve Turkish-Armenian friendship.”
It can be said that no one could defend Ararat film and Egoyan in Turkish media after the showing. The film itself with its brutal and bloody scenes lost an opportunity to question the historical events and perceived as a purely propaganda film. It is a matter of fact that Atom Egoyan could have make a more questioning and constructive film and he was considered as a chance to help to break the vicious circle in the relations with its art, yet he chose the simpler well-known way.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND GENERAL EVALUATION
The above picture shows how organized, persistent, clever and strong a network is working against a country, Turkey. Secondly, to say that movies such as Ararat do not have a damaging affect on Turkey, would be naively optimistic. These types of production have and will continue to damage Turkey and Turks’ image. Turkey should look at these in order to find out about the problems she has experienced with respect to her relations with the West. To say that ‘people also make movies against Germany and Japan, how much damage do this movies cause’ is not consistent and is not representative of the Turkish example. Both of these countries still carry the weight of the past on their shoulders. When we consider that both Germany and Japan have not achieved their political potential corresponding to their economic might, we realize that this is due to them still carrying the moral load of the 2nd World War. One of the reasons why the United States and the United Kingdom are the countries that still can voice their opinions freely on issues such as human rights, democracy and liberalism, is because Germany and Japan are cowed by anti-German and anti-Japanese movies and other art. In this context, we can say that such films, narrow the maneuverability of the Turkish Foreign Policy. Additionally, the above-mentioned countries have the tools and the expertise to balance such attacks. When one talks about Germany, it is not Hitler and the Holocaust that only come to mind. They also have musicians, scientists, authors, industrial brands and statesmen, which prevent Germany’s image to be single faceted. This is also true in the Japanese case. However Turkey’s weakness in this respect is apparent. With her developing economy, which is unable to promote her own resources and national treasures, a cultural offensive like this might deal a deathblow. That’s why we have to treat opinions such as ‘It’s just a movie, should not be exaggerated’ with much deliberation. We should not forget that there are many people in the West who remember Turkey only through the film, Midnight Express.
Today, states view arts and sports as an appendage of their foreign and security policies. As citizens take a more active part in governance, the effects of this trend intensify. Security and military agencies, which can invade homes, are firstly trying to invade the thought process of the people. In this context, Armenian interest groups have been using these tools effectively for many years. Ararat or another film or a novel, cannot be evaluated on its own. It is wrong to judge Ararat on its own and to conclude that it cannot be effective. It is equally wrong to neutralize its effectiveness and then to think that your troubles are over. Ararat is the latest product of a few decades long process. As explained earlier, organized and radical Armenian groups all around the world set aside approximately 50 million dollars for sports, art and education in order to use them against Turkey. This figure does not include donations and grants by state funds. Turkish public opinion and the media, which is use to conspiracy theories and nationalism being used daily for shameful purposes, might consider these as exaggeration or a plot by the state. According to some journalists Turkey seems to be in conflict with the world. They say that Turkey should start to find some faults of her own. While at first, these considerations seem valid, they do not take into account the load that history has placed on the shoulders of Turkey. No one should forget that the Armenian problem was never brought to surface by a single Turkish government. So much so that, until mid-1970’s Turkey did not seem to be aware of the existence of an Armenian problem. Even when Turkish diplomats were being killed one by one by the Armenian terrorist groups, like ASALA, the Turkish government still tried to solve the problem through negotiations. More importantly, never has the Armenian problem been discussed in its whole in public, even in the 1970s. The same situation can be witnessed in other issues. After this reflection, we see that the basis of the problem is the legacy the Ottoman Empire has left to Turkey and Turkey’s geographical placement. Almost all ethnic groups living as Turkey’s neighbors have won their freedom through rebelling against the Ottomans (They call them Turks). Bulgarians, Greeks and etc. In this way, it is obvious that there is a historical distrust between the former Ottoman nations in the region. The same distrust is apparent in Turks, but not to the extent of the other ethnic groups. Those ethnic groups, who won their freedom the latest, are the ones who have the most problems with Turkey. Additionally, it is quite common to see ethnic groups, which do not have a strong national identity or a single uniting feature, have a trend to hate the dominant group. In this framework, it is not surprising to see Armenians, who never had a significant state and have always been scattered in a large area, hating the Turks. For those who still consider these statements as conspiracy theories or chauvinism, are advised to view the web sites and publications of Armenians and Greeks in Europe and the United States. On these sites Turks are described as “barbarians, dirty, wild or uncivilized”. It is also quite common the see the Nazi flag next to a Turkish flag in these publications. Cursing Turkey and cooperating with illegal groups in Turkey in order to instigate armed clashes are common facts that have to be acknowledged. All these facts can be personally seen with a click of a mouse. Additionally, in the past few years, refusals of many Armenian historians to Turkey’s invitations for opening a dialog clearly confirms that the historical prejudices are still there. The national interests in relations with the Turks are ignored by most of the Armenians and the emotional history approach dominate the Armenian art, politics and society in general. As discussed above anti-Turkishnes also provide a practical contribution to formation of the Armenian identity. Facing with a strong assimilation process in the Western societies the diaspora Armenians feel their ethnic origin in anti-Turkish campaigns. It is unfortunate that a national identity has been based on hostility against another nation. This process has continued since the 1920s and now it is peaked. It is natural that art, sport and literature is in service of the national aims.
If we come back to the example of Ararat, we noticed that the movie is seen as a catalyst at a time when the restructured Armenian strategy is contemplating an intensification of so-called genocide accusations. At the presentations and in every activity to promote the movie, the ‘Armenian holocaust’ is mentioned. The showing of links to anti-Turkish sites at the official web page of the movie, to call Turkey to recognize the Armenian accusations and to call on other countries to pressurize Turkey shows that Ararat is not just another movie. Moreover, on the one hand the director of the movie has consistently accused Turkey, on the other hand he claimed that he was a constructive person and its film’s aim is to contribute the peace and dialogue. It should be seen that insulting or accusing is not a good way to start a dialogue between the nations.
Can the Movie Really Damage Turkish Interests?
Yes, it can. We can even say that Ararat, with its quality and the timing, can be more damaging than the film Midnight Express. As mentioned earlier, Armenian campaigning was thought of as starting in 2000 and intensifying in 2001 and 2002. The campaign, which slowed down due to the events of September 11, and strengthened in 2002, and the film Ararat became one of the most significant parts of the international Armenian campaign. The film shown in Cannes first, then in Canada, Russia, Armenia and other states. In all of them the Armenian allegations were repeated and the Turks were accused for the tragedy.
In France in particular Turkey has been criticized a lot as a result of the film, Ararat. As known there is a strong Armenian community in France and they have influence on the French media. Another reason why the French media showed Ararat a special reverence is because the movie is a Canadian production. France, which has historical links with Canada, shows special attention to Canada. This might be the reason why Egoyan, even when he was an unknown, received his first praises in Cannes, France. However, Egoyan’s reception in Cannes was not what he and his associates expected. Ararat was not even accepted into the competition category. This development, which surprised the whole Armenian community, was an ‘injustice’ according to Egoyan. Egoyan, which accused the jury of being ‘political’, did not withdraw his movie but screened it as separately from the festival. According to Egoyan, the reason why Ararat was not chosen was due to ‘exaggerated reaction by Turkey and Turks’ about a movie that they had not seen:
“The movie is about an era, which has never been filmed. …I tried to be as fair as I can be, while recording this film. Ararat is not a Midnight Express… I cannot accept the trivialization of such a tragedy. That’s what is said in the movie.”
People are discussing a movie they haven’t watched or scenes that have not been shot yet. Never has such a thing happened to me… Three of my movies were previously shown in the competition and were accepted by the jury. I believe that jury was under political pressure about a politicized movie… I believe that when the Turkish people watch this movie they will realize how just this movie really is. This movie has been compared to Lawrence of Arabia and Midnight express. It is definitely not a film like those… However, I am aware of my responsibilities of making a movie about such a period of time… I believe the genocide is true and there is nothing to discuss about it.
It is plain to see that Egoyan did not find in Cannes what he was looking for. This shows the success of Turkey’s efforts against this movie. This also shows that if Turkey undertakes a disciplined and active lobbying operation, these types of movies or campaigns will not be as successful. Those who attempt to initiate such campaigns will realize that these efforts have consequences.
Despite Ararat’s reception in Cannes, it is clear that the movie has been on the public agenda in the rest of France.
Apart from France the Armenian lobbies use the film in other European states, like Germany and the United Kingdom.
Armenians, who lobbied for 4 months in order to enter the Jewish Holocaust Remembrance Day, renewed their activities with the coming of Ararat. Their supporters in the House of Lords have been trying to promote the Armenian accusations in the Parliament, even though it is not on the public agenda.
The appeal of the movie in the US and Canada can be easily guessed. The Canadian première of the movie was made during the Toronto Film Festival. Some Canadians considerd the film as a masterpiece by a master, Egoyan, because its director is Canada’s most successful film director, and the film is one of the rare Canadian international film. In other words, Turkey faces a G7 nation’s pride and joy. If we consider that the reviews of the movie in the Canadian media have mainly centered on ‘genocide’ or ‘holocaust’, we can grasp the gravity of the situation. In the US, the movie has a good distributor and a million Armenians it can depend for free promotion. In addition to the theatre screening of the movie, sale and renting of DVD, VCD and videos of the movie is maybe even more important. These will provide the opportunity to enter the living rooms of the households. The producers of the movie also have steady connections with distributors in Canada, US and UK.
If we consider the financial and political influence of Armenian Diaspora in USA, we can easily realize how the film Ararat is going to be used. We do not know if at that time there will be an incident or war that might catapult Turkey’s strategic importance. Anti-Turkish lobbies will also be influential in promoting the movie. Right now, the illegal Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), Greek and Armenian lobbies have been working as one. If you enter any of their internet sites, you will be directed to other anti-Turkish web sites. For example if you enter a Greek Cypriot site, you also come across links to PKK, DHKP-C (Leftist Terrorist Group) or Armenian sites. It is also clear that turkey is against several groups, which are cooperating through their in financial and distribution networks. Other groups have also take aboard the recent Armenian ‘genocide’ campaign. Greek, who have for years claimed that Turks committed a massacre against them during the late Ottoman period, have started to talk about a ‘genocide’ of Greeks. According to the latest propaganda, Turks have always used ‘genocide’ as a political tool. This latest propaganda says, “These barbarians from central Asia cleared Anatolia from its Christian population by committing genocide against both Greeks and Armenians. Now they are doing the same against Kurds.” This claim has become so effective that Kurds and Armenians, who have fought each other constantly all through history, are trying to portray themselves as brothers. The clearest example of this is the ‘London Kurdish and Armenian Genocides Seminar’. In summary, as soon as Ararat was on screens, meetings, performances, ‘genocide’ exhibitions organized, followed by political activities. In other words, those who say that there is nothing to fear will see Ararat becoming a unifying theme of the Armenian accusations. Even though Turkey has suffered for many years of similar provocations, she is still unprepared. Another matter that impedes Turkey from acting independently is her economic crisis and her dependency on Western capital. If economic decisions concerning Turkey are made in Washington and Europe, it is clear that she does not have any bargaining power. Additionally, Turkey’s current status vis-à-vis EU, forces her to be a candidate without any excess baggage and this will create tensions between Turkey and one of the big three of EU, France.
Another direction in which the movie can negatively influence is the internal equilibrium of Turkey. Reactionary speeches and sudden outbursts will affect Turkey’s sensitive structure. As seen in previous examples Turkey can do damage to itself by anger under the guise of nationalist feelings. In this context, is we take reactions generated by the movie Salkım Hanımın Taneleri as the norm, the biggest harm will be felt by Turkey herself. Reactions against anti-Turkish activities overseas should not be directed against any ethnic group in Turkey. Especially, Turkish Armenians and other Turkish minorities should not be drawn to the dispute. Instead their cooperation against overseas influences should be sought. As has been seen the Turkish Armenians in particular have not accepted Egoyan’s style as a method in their relations with the Turkish people.
Furthermore, reactions against Ararat or any film should not be directed to a country such as Canada. To direct public hostility to a country can only be a last resort. It should not be forgotten that in a dispute, Turkey has much more to loose than the USA, Canada, France or the UK. Moreover, Turkey should first inform than react instead of first react than making efforts to shift the public opinion in these countries. Additionally, propaganda actions coming out of these countries should not be accepted as that country’s fault. Any propaganda action should be replied to in kind.
Bans and censure cannot be a lasting solution. Therefore neither Ararat nor any other Armenian film or book should be banned. It is true none of the Turkish books can be translated and delivered among the Armenians since the radical groups do not allow to do that, yet any censure may damage Turkish democracy. Therefore Turkey cannot sacrifice her democracy, pluralism and liberalism for the Armenian or any other issue.
The movie was made primarily for propaganda purposes. Additionally, Egoyan handing over his talent to politics should be criticized. Even if his movie is not shown in Turkey, Egoyan should be invited and asked why he made this movie.
Can anything legal be done? This option should be considered carefully. Until now, this option was considered not to be viable. In other words, to use the legal route before the movie has been screened is not believed to be constructive. However, after the movie is being shown, Turks and Turkey can take legal steps to right the wrong done to them. Persons and non-governmental organizations can take file lawsuits against the makers of the movie. Especially, the family of the governor of Van Cemal Pasha and his military subordinates and those who had suffered during the Van uprisings can file for compensation in the West. Mehmetcik Foundation should not keep silent against the insults directed against the Turkish military. The movie, which might create ethnic tensions in Canada, the US and Europe, might be put on trial for violating the social balance of those countries. Turkish associations located in these countries should be helped in order to make them more ready and stronger to take such actions. Additionally, these associations should hold meetings and seminars to inform the Western public of the real truth. Aware of the damage that the movie will cause, court rulings for the postponement of the public premières of the movie can be attempted.
Last Words
In conclusion, it is very wrong and even maybe dangerous to underestimate Ararat as a personal, artistic or unimportant event. It is also very important not to overestimate its worth in the wider picture, and to react in an extreme way. The issue is beyond being an Egoyan or Ararat problem. It is an Armenian problem and Ararat is a result of Turkey’s own inactivity and the propaganda of extremist Armenian groups. Turkey has always refrained from forming an organized and effective policy and instead depended on her sudden reactions. On the other hand, the extremist Armenian groups in Diaspora have tried to use Anti-Turkish feeling as a rallying call for their nation. In such an environment, it should not be surprising that a movie like Ararat has come to being. In other words, Ararat is just a part of a wider political Armenian campaign and Turkey should ready herself for the appearance of many similar films in the near future. First signs of these are being reported. ‘Armenian Genocide’ accusations are beginning to become an industry itself and it is attracting many artists who want to be heroes. The latest example of such an incident is French Director Robert Guèdiguian’s statement that, ‘my biggest dream is to make a movie about Armenians in Armenia’.
Information Societies, new Terrorism: its impact on International Politics