"During my childhood I was desperate to assimilate. In Victoria, I wanted to be like the other kids. They used to call me the little Arab boy because I was a little darker, had a strange name and came from Egypt. It wasn't until adolescence that I realized something had been lost in my life,”
Atom EGOYAN
Turkish-Armenian relations have been severely problematic in the last century. The main reason for that is the Ottoman years. The radical nationalist Armenians aimed to establish an independent Armenian state over the Ottoman territories following the Bulgarian and Greek examples. However they had no majority in any Ottoman provinces and they were not strong enough in coping with the Ottoman power. Moreover the Western powers and the Russians let them down though they had encouraged the separatist Armenian movement. At the end, the Armenians and the Turks lost thousands of people. For the Turkish people the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of the Turkish Republic put an end to the Armenian issue. The Republican administration searched ways to develop new friendship in the region. However the rulers of the First Armenian Republic followed a different way: The radical nationalists in the power declared that the first priority of the Armenian Republic was taking revenge from the Turks though the weak Armenian state confronted a lethal threat, namely the communist Russia. The Armenians lost their state in a short time however the Tashnaks did not give up the ‘revenge target’ for the last 100 years. The Armenians were under the Soviet rule for the seven decades, however the Armenian problem reached its peak in these years. During this period the main feature of the problem was that it was now under the control of the Armenian diaspora organizations. These organizations needed a common threat and a legacy in order to unite the Armenians in diaspora who were assimilating and losing their national identity. The so-called Turkish threat provided what the radical groups wanted. As a result, in spite of that Turkey was not aware of these developments the diaspora organizations shaped the new Armenian generations as ‘crusaders’ against the Turks. In this context, it can be argued that the Armenian issue and the problems between Turkish and Armenian peoples cannot be understood without referring the evolution of the Armenian community in the diasporas. Therefore this study concentrates on the Armenian diaspora, and it uses the Ararat film and this movie’s director’s experience as a case study. As will be discussed below the film Ararat clearly provides useful tools to understand the Armenian community in the West. Secondly, the life of the director, Atom Egoyan, shows how the 1915 Legacy is important in being an Armenian.
In this framework, the study is divided into two main parts. In the first section Atom Egoyan’s life is searched. The author argues that Egoyan found his Armenian identity when he discovered the problems between the Turkish and Armenian people.
The second section is on the film Ararat. The study examines whether this film is an artistic film or part of a propaganda system. The section further argues that this film vividly proves that the anti-Turkish feelings play a crucial role in making of the Armenian identity.
I. ATOM EGOYAN: A DIRECTOR WHO LATER REMEMBERED THAT HE WAS AN ARMENIAN
A. Early Years
Atom Egoyan is a Canadian citizen, a well-known film director and scriptwriter. He was born in 1960 in Cairo (Egypt) as the first child of Joseph and Shushan Yeghoyan. Then the family was in the furniture business. However, his parents were interested in arts. Joseph Yeghoyan, in his youth, had studied painting in the Art Institute of Chicago. Sources say that the reason behind the family naming their first-born ‘Atom’ was the building of the first nuclear reactor in Egypt. The family migrated to Canada three years after Atom was born. While there was a considerable Armenian population being established in Montreal and its environs, the family settled in British Colombia with their newborn daughter ‘Eve’. In other words Atom Egoyan found himself a part of the Canadian society from an early age and was detached from the Armenian culture. The family deciding to change their last name to Egoyan shows their struggle to found a new life and to forget the past. The family continued to do their furniture business in Canada. Atom, in his youth ignored his Armenian background and lived like a typical Canadian. For many years, he was so hostile to his Armenian identity he refused to learn how to speak Armenian. Egoyan believes that this was due to living at a place where there were no Armenians and the people around him were unreceptive to foreigners. In other words, Egoyan who was discriminated by the environment felt a lot of resentment to his own identity and tried very hard to be a part of the dominant culture. Egoyan describes those years by:
"During my childhood I was desperate to assimilate. In Victoria, I wanted to be like the other kids. They used to call me the little Arab boy because I was a little darker, had a strange name and came from Egypt. It wasn't until adolescence that I realized something had been lost in my life,”
‘I was powerless on the issue of assimilation. I wanted to be like other kids in Victoria. Because I was darker, came from Egypt and had a strange name, they called me the little Arab boy. I did not know what I had missed until I reached puberty.’
According to himself, he became aware of his ethnic identity when he started his university education in Toronto. We can easily say that the reason why assimilation is the most prevalent topic he uses in his movies, is due to his experiences from his childhood and youth.
As a student, Egoyan worked at the Empress Hotel as a busboy for four summers. Egoyan says that his experiences there prepared him for what he was to do later in his life. He summarizes these experiences as "to see events through many angles”. The movie Speaking Parts (1989) might be the movie where he used these experiences the most because it takes place at a hotel room.
Egoyan intensified his artistic endeavors while continuing his higher education at the Toronto University Trinity College. It is interesting to note that Egoyan chose to study International Relations. While studying diplomacy, Egoyan learned how to play guitar and continued his attempts at writing a script.
B. Egoyan Realizes That He is an Armenian
As mentioned before, Egoyan for years denied his Armenian identity. His transformation corresponds with his years in Toronto. Maybe under the influence of the politics education he was receiving or maybe in Toronto’s particular environment, Egoyan rediscovered his Armenian roots and joined an Armenian association at the university. As a member of this association he concentrated on the history and language of Armenia and under the tutelage of an Anglican priest, developed his Armenian identity. Afterwards, he was active in every Armenian social event and tried to develop his identity as an Armenian. Egoyan explains those times by, "Armenian student events at that time became a part of my life”. According to Egoyan his revolutionary transformation was due to him being in a part of an Armenian group for the first time in his life. Egoyan, who lived apart from Armenians for many years, discovered that being an Armenian was not something to be ashamed of, and started to enjoy having a different ethnic identity. In this framework, it can be said that Atom Egoyan became an ‘identity convert’.
If we study Egoyan’s artistic identity, we should not be surprised that he turned out to be an artist, considering he grew up in a family -that gave primary importance to art. Young Egoyan started writing plays when he was only 13 years old and continued this hobby into his university years, becoming more professional. The writers that influenced him the most were Eugene Ionesco, Samuel Beckett and Harold Pinter. During his years in university, he also became interested in music and cinema. Egoyan started to make short films when he was at the university. His first movie, Howard In Particular (1979), was made with help from Hart House Film Board. This movie brought him an award from Canadian National Exhibition. This became his first of many awards. This success brought many other opportunities and Hart House continued to help him with other short films.
Atom Egoyan also discovered his talent for writing screenplays during his university years. Open House, which he wrote while he was at the university, was a movie script for a half an hour-long film. Canadian organizations acknowledged his talent and Egoyan received every support they could provide. In forming his identity, his struggles with the Hollywood and Western culture and the policies of local governments were influential. The backing provided by the Canadian Art Council for his script support this conclusion.
After graduating from Toronto University in 1982, Atom Egoyan started working at the Tarragon Theatre as a play writer. At that time Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) became interested in Open House and bought its broadcasting rights and later broadcasted it on national TV (1982).
In 1983, in spite of his moderate successes, Atom Egoyan was trying to overcome his identity crisis, trying to succeed in what he was doing but was known only by a limited number o people. While working on his first long-movie, Next of Kin, he met his current wife Arsinée Khanjian, and she helped him find himself and later his Armenian identity became more dominant.
Arsinée is a Lebanese Armenian and she migrated to Canada when she was 17 years old. In other words Arsinée Khanjian is an Armenian who lived as an Armenian for much longer than Egoyan. This caused her Armenian character to be stronger, distinct and maybe more radical. Arsinée was working as an actor in an Armenian movie called Mousetrap. Arsinée was a young actress, who was helped by her dentist husband, in trying to get famous. The dentist husband insistently followed Atom Egoyan for giving his wife a chance. While this caused him to lose his wife, she eventually became famous. The professional relationship between Atom Egoyan and Arsinée Khanjian soon became a passionate love affair that lead to marriage. For Arsinée, getting married with a talented director was important. However that director being an Armenian was even more important. Arsinée summarizes this situation as such,
‘I had met an artist with my history and culture. This had always been, maybe unconsciously, my dream.’
Atom Egoyan’s relationship with his wife affected his professional life and forced him to think more strongly about his Armenian identity. Egoyan admits this:
‘Our relationship with Arsinée merged with the stories of the movies.’
Egoyan’s nickname for his wife, ‘Armenian Princess’, shows that the basis of the relationship is being Armenian. Khanjian’s nationalism is at such a level that, when the role of a Latino woman in the TV program Foolish Heart was given to her, the character was changed in to an Armenian woman. Because the story of the program was about a middle class lady’s ‘liberal’ adventures, Arsinée admitted that she was a little worried about how the Armenian society would react towards it. In other words Arsinée tries to keep her relations with the Canadian Armenian society at the highest level and in this way, can also influence her husband.
After finding ‘his desired actress and wife’, Atom Egoyan recorded his first long movie Next of Kin in 1984. This movie is also the first film in which his Armenian identity becomes apparent. The movie is about the relations between an Armenian family and the lead character (Peter). This movie was also funded by official Canadian organizations. Without the help of Canada Council and Ontario Art Council, this movie could not have been made. The movie was screened but it’s hard to say that it received much appraisal from the viewers. The movie was judged as being ignored by a movie critic. At that time Egoyan was in dire straits and some television projects provided his only income.
Soon after this period, Egoyan agreed with CBC to direct a political movie about the life of an Irish boxer. As a result In This Corner (1989) came to being. These successes brought him many other projects from Canadian and the US television corporations. Egoyan, based in Toronto, directed many TV shows until the mid-1980s.
In the mid-1980s he directed his second long movie, Family Viewing. The story is about a woman’s relations with her husband and stepson, and Arsinée Khanjian and Gabrielle Rose play in the lead. The movie was first screened in 1987, and was the first movie of Atom Egoyan to attract considerable attention from the cinema world. Egoyan started to appear in many international and national film festivals. At that time he emphasized his support for the development of the Canadian culture and as a result was duly awarded. It is not surprising to see Armenian actors is Atom Egoyan’s movies that are full of Canadian nuances. In an interview, Egoyan stated that he felt this movie to be closest to him.
Family Viewing was followed by Speaking Parts (1987). The story of the movie is about a Hotel maidservant’s love and surrounding stories. It was shown in 1989 Cannes Film festival. The Adjuster made in 1991 is one of the rare big budget movies of Egoyan. The budget was 1.5 million dollars and was the second movie of Egoyan to be shown in Cannes.
Adjuster was a movie with many sexual overtones. Even some critics said that the movie was an important illustration of Egoyan’s "sexual obsessions”. The lead of the movie was again Arsinée Khanjian. Cannes appearances attracted the Orion Classic to sign a US distribution deal with Egoyan. As a result, Adjuster was the first Egoyan movie to have received wide audience viewing in the USA and Egoyan became a well-known director. Moreover Adjuster received the Jury Award at the Moscow Film Festival. This one million-ruble award laid the foundations for his next movie in Armenia. Because a special clause of the award was to make a movie in the old Soviet Union lands. Egoyan became known as the ‘Canadian director’ as a result of this movie. The movie also received the ‘Best Canadian Film’ and 250 thousand dollars from the Toronto Film Festival.
C. Calendar: Egoyan’s Armenian Identity Meets Cinema
Until 1992, Egoyan created some small Armenian characters in his movies but his dream was to make a movie wholly about Armenians. We can say that he made the movie of Calendar with this in mind. As mentioned earlier, Egoyan had to make a movie in the old Soviet Union lands in order to collect his 1 million-ruble prize. This condition gave birth to the movie of Calendar. As time went by the prize decreased and Armenia was separated from the Soviet Union. As the movie project was about to falter, Atom Egoyan contacted the German Television Channel ZDF during the Rotterdam Film Festival and with its financial backing reinitiated the project.
The crew went to Armenia, but because of financial and time limitations the most important scenes of this 75-mimute movie had to be recorded in 10 days. Most parts of the movie were recorded by a home-camera and script had to be shortened. It is even claimed that the movie was recorded without a set script. Soldiers were in attendance for the duration of the recordings. In conclusion, Egoyan’s dream turned out to be not what he desired, due to a small budget (80,000 dollars) and unsuitable environment. However this was his first ‘historical’ movie and could be considered as his first step towards Ararat. The director not achieving what he really wanted in Calendar tried again in Ararat. The director also acted with his wife in this movie. Ashot Adamian, was the other lead. Even though the movie could not be distributed widely, it received good reviews. Issues these reviews most discussed were the close connection set between Armenia and Canada, family relations of the director, sexual relations and problems faced by an ethnic minority (Armenians) that the movie cultivated. Another point that has to be considered is that Calendar was one of the most promoted movies of the director. Especially in Canada, the USA, the UK and France local Armenian organizations worked very hard to promote the film.
Calendar, as mentioned earlier, is the second movie by Egoyan, which deals with Armenian identity. Egoyan, in this movie, studies being an Armenian on three levels. a) Nationalism, b) Diaspora, c) Assimilation. The driver-photographer’s wife and photographer-wife relationships represent these levels in the movie. The movie is based on three characters and three time periods. Changing timelines is one of Egoyan’s most prominent specialties. In Ararat he uses two different timelines. Calendar begins in the bedroom of a Canadian Photographer (Atom Egoyan). There is a 12-page calendar on the wall with photographs of historical Armenian Churches and all through the movie the photographer has affairs with many women speaking in different languages. From time to time he looks at these Churches and remembers his wife (Arsinée Khanjian) he left back in Armenia. When he went to Armenia to take the photos of the Churches for the Calendar, a nationalist Armenian (Ashot Adamian) worked as a guide and driver for his wife. The dialog between the wife and the driver is always in Armenian and the director did not use any subtitles. Further on in the movie, we see that the photographer and his wife have separated and we learn about his thoughts on the relationship between the driver and his ex-wife. The real reason of the tension between the photographer and his wife is that he takes the photos of the churches and considers this just another job while his wife respects what these churches stand for.
The last word we can say about the movie is that the director found this movie to be too ‘personal’. The separation scene between the photographer and his wife is even thought to represent the separation of Egoyan and his wife. While the couple discounts these claims, Egoyan states that Calendar put himself and his relationship on the forefront and included some sections of his life. In other words, Calendar contains some clues to Egoyan’s thought process and his life.
Exotica
The next important work of Egoyan after Calendar, was a British-Canadian production, Exotica (1994). This was the Egoyan’s largest movie until then (5 million dollars). Egoyan studies an isolated life, mixed emotions and their consequences to ones sexual life in this movie. The movie takes place at a striptease bar called Exotica and deals with a young lady Christina (Mia Kirshner), her close relations and her customers. Exotica became the most successful Egoyan movie up till then. It entered the official contest of the 1994 Cannes Film Festival and received the International Film Critics Award. It found a large audience in Canada and received 8 Gerie Awards. Its distribution in the USA was done by the Miramax, which is also doing Ararat. Additionally, positive response from the US media created large opportunities for Egoyan. Some say that Exotica was the movie that opened the doors of the US movie industry to Egoyan.
Egoyan’s success in the US increased his popularity in Canada. According to the distribution firm, it is hard for a Canadian director or movie to attract attention in Canada. Canadians usually wait until a Canadian artist becomes well-known overseas before they embrace him or her. In this context, Egoyan success overseas, especially France, made Egoyan and his films much more popular in Canada.
D. Sweet Hereafter: Egoyan, An Oscar Nominee
Sweet Hereafter is the last movie by Egoyan that is important for our study. We can say that this movie made him the success that he is. This movie was the successful movie that the Canadian movie industry was dreaming about and made Egoyan one of the most important movie personalities in Canada. Sweet Hereafter was made by Egoyan adapting Russell Banks’ novel to the silver screen. While novel takes place in New York, Egoyan changed it to Sam Dent (British Colombia). This change emphasized the Canadian character of the movie. British actor Ian Holm plays the lead. The movie premièred in Cannes Film Festival and received the Special Jury Award, International critics Award and the Ecumenical Jury Award. The movie also opened the 1997 Toronto film Festival and became the international pride of the small Canadian cinema. The movie won eight Genie Awards from 16 nominations in 1997 and first time in the history of the Canadian cinema a Canadian movie was nominated for two Oscars in 1998 (‘Best Script’ and ‘Best Director’). It was considered ‘unbelievable’ for a Canadian movie and Canadian director to be nominated for Oscars. Apart from the awards, international critics’ reviews were also very positive. Especially, appraisal from Le Monde, The New York Times and USA Today made Egoyan’s connection with the American and French public that much stronger.
In spite of all this success, Sweet Hereafter, just like other Egoyan movies, was not a box office success. This should be tied to Egoyan’s style and stories, which are hard to understand by ‘intellectual’ and popular audience.
While the movie has nothing to do with the Armenian problem, Armenian groups still could find some connection between the movie and their accusations. For example Hrag Vartanian’s review about the movie;
‘Some see the affects of the genocide in Sweet Hereafter. It is based on Russel Banks’ novel of the same name, and is about the trauma of a town in British Colombia that has a deadly bus accident. Critics say that this is a unconscious representation of the unhealed scars of the Armenian nation and the Turkish denial’
His following movie Felicia’s Journey is also a typical Egoyan movie. While it did not bring large box office revenues, it was still considered as quality work by the viewers. With this movie Atom Egoyan became the first Canadian director to have competed three times (at different times) in the Cannes Film Festival. The movie is a thriller that tells the story of a young Irish girl’s adventures in Birmingham (UK). This film also gave the director the opportunity for him to strengthen his connections in both the UK and Ireland.
E. Main Characteristics of Egoyan’s Films
If we list the main characteristics of Egoyan’s films in the context of Ararat:
- Egoyan stresses his two identities. Being a Canadian and being an Armenian. His emphasis on being a Canadian returns as financial assistance from a nation that is hungry for artistic success and makes him a ‘hero’. Having found his Armenian roots later in life makes him much eager to remind people of his Armenian background. However he present this issue as not conflicting with being a true Canadian. The Toronto Star newspaper even describes him as a Canadian nationalist.
- The issues and style he chooses to use in his films are sometimes found incomprehensible and too deep and this decreases the box office revenue he generates. However, Egoyan’s choices are found to be very valuable for Cinema and bring considerable respect from his peers. To be perceived to form an alternative to Hollywood also brings him respect.
- He is known for bringing a new dimension to movies, compared to American films. He is a perfectionist and seems to demand the viewers’ attention. Actor Ian Holm summarizes this as, ‘You might not see him. Maybe you even have to watch the movie three times in two weeks. But he is always there. This is his style, the use of Light, sound and shadows, his surroundings and time. This is his everything…’
- Director has a special link with France. Especially Cannes Film Festival is where his real success started. That’s why it is not surprising for him to make his new movie’s (Ararat) première over there. There are two more reasons why the director has close relations with France. The first is the special relationship between Canada and France and secondly, the important Armenian minority in France.
- Most of his movies, even those that mainly deal with his Armenian identity, received funding from Canadian Art Council, Telefilm Canada and local governments. In other words, he cannot be accused of being sponsored solely by Armenians. Egoyan states that the most important reason behind him making his movies in Canada as official funding and claims that government support frees him from market pressure.
- In Egoyan’s movies structure is more important than dialog.
- It can be said that he likes using his camera from an unusual angle. However, with increasing fame, his choice in stories and presentation has become more conservative.
- Stories mostly deal with assimilation, identity crisis and personal problems. Director ties this to his personal experiences: ‘Characters I form in my movies are usually those who want to find a place to settle.’
- While Egoyan’s movies have small budgets, their influence has been much greater than most big-budget movies.
F. Egoyan’s Opinions About the Armenian Problem
After examining Atom Egoyan’s art and movies, another important issue in the context of Ararat is his opinions about Armenian problem. First of all, as mentioned earlier, Egoyan’s stance during his university years and his stance before are completely different. We can say that this transformation radicalized him. When one experiences a transformation as great as he did, in order to justify ones identity, a person moves to the edge and his or her emotions and thoughts become more radical. We can also see similar changes in Egoyan. His wife, who is known to have radical opinions, has not helped him in his transformation. She even encouraged him to be more radical. Arsinée Khanjian was so radical that she could legitimate terrorism for her political aims: As known three armed Armenians stormed the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa, and they killed a Canadian security guard and the ambassador was badly wounded. The attackers took his wife and daughter as hostage. When asked her about this terrorist attack Arsinée Khanjian said "it really put the Armenian genocide on the table”. It can be understood from these words that she is obsessed with the 1915 events and she could not see the evil behind a terrorist attack.
Media learned about Atom Egoyan’s radical opinions about Armenian problem in 1999. Around those times, Canadian officials discounted the ‘genocide’ claims of the Armenian lobby and a member of the Parliament from Liberal Party Julian Reed took a openly hostile stand against Armenian accusations. Egoyan in response reacted surprisingly and entered an aggressive discussion. On February 15, 1999, Parliamentary secretary of Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, deputy Reed made a speech in response to the special proposal made by the House of Commons under the direction of Armenian lobby. In the speech he stated that, arguments and counter arguments made by both Armenians and Turks made it impossible to discern between the right and wrong and had placed the Canadian Parliament in an uncomfortable position. Reed, in his speech stated that, ‘These days there is a tendency to use the word genocide outside of its meaning, sometimes even figuratively… What happened in 1915? Both sides take a different view and each tackle different events.’ He said that around 700,000 Armenians had died as a result of these vents. However, he continued, most had died from illness, hunger, harsh weather conditions and to have had to survive in open air. According to Reed, it is unacceptable for the Canadian government to pick a side or to take a stand where Turks would be accused of being guilty. He added that, the proposal would not solve the problem. Because, Reed said, the proposal forces us to chose a side to be hostile to the other. Egoyan’s reply to Reed was very harsh. Famous director, in a statement to the media, openly accused the Canadian Government and Deputy Reed as:
"To form a cloud of misinformation around the problem, to bend the truths and to make it harder to find the real answers is to ignore the seriousness of the issue at hand… It appalls me to see that an issue that has had a great influence over my and other families to be discussed in such an old-fashioned way… I always tried not to get involved with politics. However, these actions have shocked me… Armenians believe that there is significant evidence to convince the most cynical observer that this genocide really took place… Reed’s statement seems to approve the Turkish governments point of view... An issue as important as this cannot become a tool for propaganda.”
Another occasion that Egoyan conveyed his thoughts on Armenian accusations is 1999 Cannes film festival. The director, who attracted attention with his movie Felicia’s Journey, stated that Turkey had to accept the Armenian Genocide and added that his struggle would continue until this happened. Egoyan, who was interviewed by a Italian journalist, continued,
‘I have lived my life always feeling the wounds of the genocide. However, the world still does not acknowledge the Armenian genocide. This is the reason why my struggle continues.’
Egoyan continued to express his views anytime Ararat was discussed and stated that he had made this movie in order to make the Turkish government to accept the fact and his only desire was Turkish acknowledgement. In another interview about Ararat, he said that he felt this project to be a great responsibility for him and added that all Armenians had been waiting for decades for a big movie about the Armenian ‘genocide’ and it was his desire to answer that call:
"I think, as an Armenian filmmaker (he was born in Egypt and raised in Canada but is of Armenian heritage), you're always wondering about this film, because it has never really been made, as such. It is a unique piece of history. The crime has never been admitted by the Turkish government that perpetrate it so, that makes for a very interesting dramatic situation, dealing with issues of denial.”
II. 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. Official Support From 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 Tun acknowledging that he helped in the process claimed in an interview with Hrriyet 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 Tun composing a song for Ararat was found to be odd by many, the angriest reaction came from the newspaper Star. Star said that Tun was deceiving the Turkish media with his statements and music lovers in Turkey were criticizing his actions. Star reported that Tun’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 become 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 Ltem, the annual budget of Armenians who try to prove their allegations is around 50 million dollars. Ltem 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 have usually repeated the Armenian version of events. The film, even before completion, was 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 popular movie until now.
CONCLUSION
The above picture shows how organized, persistent, clever and strong a network is working to deepen the hostility between the Turkish and Armenian peoples. Some of the Armenian organizations are nourished by the rise of the hostility and a solution become an impossible task for the both sides. Thanks to these organizations, the Armenian second and third generations resist assimilation in the diaspora by basing their ethnic identity on anti-Turkishness. Ararat is one of the results of this process. As a matter of fact that not only the film but the film’s director is also one of the direct results of this vicious circle. National identity is based on hate, hate produce more hate and hostility and a legend is being created in order to preserve national identity in a foreign state.
In conclusion, it is very wrong and even maybe dangerous to underestimate Ararat as a personal, artistic or unimportant event. The issue is beyond being an Egoyan or Ararat problem. The problem is Armenian identity crisis in diaspora and its reflections on politics.
Information Societies, new Terrorism: its impact on International Politics