Art and Propaganda: Ararat Case Study - 2
mark rivers
http://www.turkishweekly.net/articles.php?id=90
Art and Propaganda: Ararat Case Study - 2
Dr. Sedat LACINER
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.[1] 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...' (...)'[2]
'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[3] 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.'[4]
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?"'[5]
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.'[6]
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.'[7]
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'.[8]
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..."[9]
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.[10] 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.'"[11]
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." [12]
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[13], 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.[14] 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.[15] 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.[16]
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.[17] 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.[18] 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.[19] 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".[20]
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'.[21] 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.'[22]
- "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."[23]
- "... 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?"[24]
- "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...".[25]
-
- "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. [26] Behind him,
Sevan is held by a large soldier[27]. 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...'[28]...Sevan's screams
of pain continue in the background. Suddenly, they come to a
stop."[29]
- '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."[30]
- "Philip: "How much he suffered. Losing his family. His
mother dying of starvation in his arms..."[31]
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."[32]
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.[33] 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."[34]
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.[35] 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.[36] 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."[37]
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.[38] 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.[39] 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..."[40]
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.[41]
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.[42] 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...'[43]
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.'[44]
According to Egoyan, Ararat will eventually be shown in Turkey.[45] 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.[46] 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 Adapazari,
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.'[47]
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.'[48]
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'.[49]
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.[50] 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.[51]
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.[52] 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.[53] During the same visit, Atom Egoyan and the Armenian
Government also signed an agreement to cooperate in the future.[54]
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[55].
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.[56] 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.[57]
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.[58] 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.[59]
However it is known that these producers can hardly afford the reported
movie budget of 50 million dollars.[60] 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.[61] 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.[62] 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.[63] 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.[64] 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.[65]
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.[66] 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".[67] 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'.[68] 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'.[69] 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[70]
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."[71]
If we come to the artistic and technical reactions, the 90-page script,
which came out before the movie has generated positive comments.[72]
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.
* The study was originally published in 2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] It is an old tradition to portray Turks as sexual deviant or
homosexuals in movies. This might be caused due to perceptions from the
Ottoman times. European explorers, when visiting the Ottoman lands saw
the man dominated coffee houses, men and women's bath houses, a
social life that totally segregates men and women, harems and sports
like wrestling and assumed that these were homosexual practices. This
perception continued in the 20th century. The homosexual Turkish
character in the movie of Ararat does not show a premeditated act but
just Egoyan's automatic response. Another reason can be Egoyan's
choice to use unusual characters in his movies. However, the choice of
a homosexual Turkish character is maybe the only 'positive' aspect
vis-à-vis Turks in this movie. While this aspect of Ali's
personality is not presented in a bad light in the script, contrary to
the opinions of the Turkish media, Ali's sexual preferences should
not create a negative attitude on the viewer. For the opinion of the
Turkish media on this subject: Deniz Güçer Erdem, 'Ararat'ta
Canlandirilan Ali Isimli Türk, Escinsel' (The Turk Called Ali in
Ararat is a Gay), Star, 15 February 2002.
[2] Scene 41, Inside the studio.
[3] Although the name of the State during the 1915 events, the director
deliberately use the word of 'Turkey'. Interestingly Atom Egoyan
also use the modern Turkish Republic's flag in the film instead of
the flag of the Ottoman Empire.
[4] Scene 42, Int. Studio - Day.
[5] Scene 42, Inside the studio.
[6] Scene 43 Int / Ext. Raffi's Car. Street. Near Ali's Apartment
- Day Raffi is driving Ali back from the studio.
[7] Scene 53.
[8] Here 'resettlement' (tehcir) is meant instead of deportation.
However, the director uses 'deportation' word instead of
'resettlement'. As a matter of fact that the Ottoman decision taken
in 1915 did not aim to deport the Armenian citizens to abroad. The
Ottoman Armenians were taken to another Ottoman province, to the
terrirories, which is now called as Syria. In another word,
resettlement means not to deport some people out of the country but to
forcefully relocate them to another region within the country.
Furthermore, statements made in the movie are given with the historical
references as if it is a history textbook. So those viewers, who do not
take the time to do some research, will be lead to believe a certain
set of 'truths'.
[9] Scene 55.
[10] For more detailed analysis: Sedat Laçiner, 'Armenia's Jewish
Skepticism and its impact on Armenia-Israel Relations', Armenian
Studies, Vol. 1 (4), December-January-February 2002, Sedat Laçiner,
'Israil-Ermenistan Iliskileri ve Israil - Türkiye Isbirliginin
Ermenistan'a Etkileri' (Israel-Armenia Relations and Israel-Turkey
cooperation's influence on Armenia), Stratejik Analiz, Vol. 2, No.
23, March 2002; Ibrahim Kaya, 'The Holocaust and Armenian Case:
Highlighting the Main Differences', Armenian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4,
December 2001-January-February 2002, pp. 274-295.
[11] Scene 55.
[12] Scene 55.
[13] Ani also is Raffi's mother and the wife of the dead ASALA
terrorist. The question whether similarity between the name 'Ani'
and the township Ani in Anatolia, is just a coincidence or if it has
some other reason, still remains to be answered.
[14] Scene 47, inside, Art Galery, Raffi and Celia's dialog.
[15] Ani's opinions about the issue support this conclusion. 55,
inside, Art gallery, Bookstore - at noon.
[16] Scene 73, A dialog between Ani and Rouben.
[17] Here, we come across another strange relationship in accordance
with Egoyan's style.
[18] Scene 66.
[19] In addition to homosexuality or being sexual perverts, Turks in
anti-Turkish movies are also portrayed as drug users and suppliers. It
is strange that even though the use of drugs per person and the
commonality of homosexuality in European countries, US and Canada are
much higher, these concepts are still used to portray Turks.
[20] Scene 54. Outside, Van, Turkey, Street, 1915, Night.
[21] Scene 73.
[22] Scene 74.
[23] Scene 69.
[24] Scene 70, Int. Studio - Day.
[25] Scene 71, Ext. Van. Turkey. Country. Riverbank - Day. (It is
significant that Egoyan in his film use 'Turkey' as the name of the
Eastern Anatolian territories when he is speaking about torture scenes
though it is a well known fact that the radical Armenians use
'Western Armenia' term for the same territories.
[26] In the script, it is suggested by a small horseshoe that it's to
be hammered on to a small child. However, as any person who has some
knowledge about horseshoes knows that no horseshoe can fit a child's
foot. Additionally, if we consider that the occupation of ironsmith
being common among the Armenians at that time, and that certain
professions were left to minorities, we see that the message being
given in the movie that 'Turks used the what they did best (being an
iron-smith) on human beings', is totally without basis. Moreover, a
similar scene was done in another Armenian movie, Forty Days of Musa
Dagh, we realize that another stereo type for Turks is being created.
[27] The reason why the director use "a large soldier" is not an
accident. Similar to the Second World War propaganda films the director
tries to contrast "the large and evil Turkish soldier" and
"innocent and small Armenian child". In other word, the "large
soldier" phrase is obviously not meant as a complement. Egoyan's
purpose is more to set a "bad Turk" image then to investigate the
problems between Turks and Armenians. The 'vicious, ugly and large'
soldiers usually shown in movies about Nazi's are also used
frequently in this movie
[28] Scene 32, outside, Van, Turkey, street, 1915, Noon
[29] Scene 33, inside, Studio, Cevdet Bey's office, Van, 1915, noon.
[30] Ext. Van. Turkey. 1915. Street - Day. 'The American flag' is
another image is used deliberately. The film attempts to show the Turks
and Americans in different sides. As a result the film's makers hopes
to give a clear message to the American audience.
[31] Scene 61.
[32] Andrew Wheatcroft, The Ottomans: Dissolving Images, (London:
Penguin Books, 1995), p.234.
[33] For the roots of the image of Turks see Nedret Kuran Burçoglu,
Multiculturalism: Identity and Otherness, (Istanbul: Bogazici
University Press, 1997); Sedat Laçiner, 'Culture and Civilization in
Turkey - European relations: Historical and Ideological Roots',
Liberal Düsünce, Vol. 4, No. 13, Winter 99, p.39-57; Sedat Laçiner,
Foreign Policy and Ideology, unpublished PhD thesis, King Collage,
University of London, 2001.
[34] 50 Ext. Turkey - Day.
[35] Rick McGinnis, 'Exclusive Visit Behind the scenes of Atom
Egoyan's new Film', National Weekend Post (Canada), 5 August 2001.
[36] For a detailed analysis see: Nedret Kuran-Burçoglu, 'The
Implied Message Of Ararat And Its Intended Audience', Review of
Armenian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2002, pp. 65-78.
[37] As known, Noah's Ark is very important for Armenian national
identity. In addition, Armenians frequently refer to their nation as
'Noah's children' or 'Hayk's children'. This is the main
reason why they have chosen Mount Ararat as their national symbol.
[38] Bruce Kirkland, 'Egoyan Mounts Testament; New Film Ararat a
personal Take on Genocide', The Toronto Sun, 8 June 2001.
[39] 'Turkey Plans to Sue Canadian Movie Director', Armenian
reporter, 8 December 2001.
[40] Atom Egoyan, 'Turbulent' Filmmaker, Fall 2001.
[41] 'It had...' Rick McGinnis, 'Masters of Illusion: An
Exclusive Visit Behind the Scenes of Atom Egoyan's New Film
Ararat'; The National Post of Canada, 4 August 2001.
[42] 'It had'; Bruce Kirkland, 'Egoyan Mounts Testament: New Film
Ararat A Personal Take on Genocide', The Toronto Sun, 8 June 2001.
[43] As Egoyan clearly declared here with these word aimed to force
people think different. As a well-known fact that the main aim of
propaganda activities in politics is to force people to change their
ideas on a specific subject.
[44] 'It had...'.
[45] Sid Adilman, 'Toronto, Turkey Circa 1915', Star (Toronto), 8
June 2001.
[46] The previous movies these actors played in are: Bruce Greenwood
(Thirteen Days, The Sweet Hereafter), Eric Bogosian (Talk Radio), Brent
Carver (The Legend of Sleepy Hollow), Christopher Plummer (Dracula 200
and The Insider), Elias Koteas (The Thin Red Line and Crash),
Marie-Joseé Croze (Maelstrom), Arsinée Khanjian (Felicia's
Journey).
[47] Interview with Charles Aznavour, 8 December 2000, Radio 4, NPS
Supplement. Note: The text is a translated version (s.l.).
[48] Interview with Charles Aznavour, 8 December 2000, Radio 4, NPS
Supplement
[49] Interview with Charles Aznavour, Muhammer Elveren, 'Agri Dagi
Isinize Yaramaz Bize Hediye Edebilirsiniz' (The Mount Ararat Is Not
Usefull For You, You Can Give It To Us), Hürriyet, Turkish daily, 22
May 2002.
[50] For details related to the campaign in the United Kingdom: Sedat
Laçiner, 'The Armenian Diaspora in Britain and the Armenian
Question', The Armenian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 3,
September-October-November 2001, pp. 233-257.
[51] For the affects of September 11 on Armenian Question: Sedat
Laçiner, '11 Eylül Olaylari (Yeni Terörizm) ve Ermeni Sorunu (The
Events of September 11 (New Terrorism) and Armenian Question),
Stratejik Analiz, Vol.2, No.19, November 2001, pp. 39-46.
[52] Designing of the city of Van used in the film was started around
the end of 2000. 'Atom Spliting', The Toronto Star, 22 December
2000; McGinnis, 'Masters of...'.
[53] 2Egoyan Visits Armenia, receives Momento', Asbarez, 7 December
2001.
[54] 'Armenian-Canadian movie To Be Shot Soon', Armenian News
network/ Groong, 10 December 2001.
[55] Bob Thompson, 'Egoyan to Film Armenian Tragedy', Toronto Sun,
... 2001; Abdullah Kiliç, 'Ikinci Geceyarisi Ekspresi Yolda' (A
Second Midnight Express is in the Making), Zaman, 28 November 2001.
[56] 'Mr. X Creates an Armenian Town and a Cast of Thousands',
animationist.com, 22 October 2001; 'Mr. X Creates Extras for
Ararat', Animation magazine, 2 October 2001. The same company is also
responsible for the technical structure of another movie by Serendipity
Point Film Company 'Men With Brooms'. In ther words business
connections between Egoyan and Laros are not limited to Ararat.
[57] Cenk Baslamis, 'Nefret Filmine Start' (The Start of the Movie
of Hate), Milliyet, 12 August 2001; Zeynep Gürcanli, 'Ulusal
Utanç' (National Shame), Star, 1 July 2001; 'Sözde Ermeni
Soykirimi Filmi, Kanda'da Çekilmeye Baslandi; Filmin Yönetmeni Atom
Egoyan' (So-called Armenian Genocide Film, is Being Made in Canada;
The Director is Atom Egoyan), Nethaber, www.nethaber.com, 12 August
2001; Murat Birsel, (Midnight Express'ten Sonra Ararat' (Ararat,
After Midnight Express), Sabah, 19 August 2001, www.netbaber.com, 19
August 2001.
[58] Oner Ongun, 'Ararat Yaramadi', Star, 30 January 2002. For a
detailed analysis of the Turkish media's reaction regarding the film,
Ararat see Sedat Laçiner, 'Ararat Filmi Ve Türk Basini: Elestirel
Bir Degerlendirme' (Ararat Film And Turkish Media: A Critical
Analysis), Ermeni Arastirmalari, Vol. 2, No. 5, Spring 2002, pp. 48-83.
[59] 'It had to be made by Atom', globeandmail.com, 23 June 2001,
Hyetert system.
[60] There are conflicting reports about the budget of the movie. The
smallest budget reported is 15 million dollars. Some say that the
budget is 63 million dollars, not including donations. 'Halit Refig
Filmin Çok Büyük Bütçesi Var' (Halit Refig, 'The Movie Has A
Huge Budget), Zaman, 28 November 2001.
[61] Richard Porton, 'The Politics of Denial: An Interview with Atom
Egoyan', Cineaste, Vol. 25, No. 1, December 1999, p.39.
[62] Sule Türker, 'Bu Film Basimizi Çok Agritacak' (This Film
Will Cause More Troubles), Sabah, 5 December 2001.
[63] Jonathan Bing, 'Miramax Picks Up Egoyan's Ararat', Daily
Variety, Vol. 271, No. 65, 31 May 2001, p.1.
[64] Erdal Bilallar, 'Walt Disney'in Parmagi' (Walt Disney's
Role), Sabah, 6 December 2001.
[65] 'Atom Egoyan's Movie Attracts Great Attention',
Yeniport.com; 'Canadian Director's Movie 'Ararat' Has Been Sold
Even Before The Movie Was Completed', http://perso.wanadoo...
[66] For the lecture of Ambassador Ömer Engin Lütem, Tarih Boyunca
Türk-Ermeni Iliskileri Sempozyumu, 13-14 Nisan 2001 (Turkish -
Armenian Relations In Past, Symposium, 14 April 2001) via Belgenet,
December 2001.
[67] 'For example in Kit's article only the phrase 'Armenian
Holocaust' is used. Zorianna Kit, 'Ararat Brings Four On Board In
Star roles', Hollywood Reporter, 6 April 2001.
[68] For examples: Upcomingmovies.com; Eugene Hernandez, 'Miramax and
Egoyan, Miramax acquires Egoyan's Ararat', Daily News, 1 January
2001, Some 'fairer' commentaries use the word massacre: Mary
Glucksman, 'Atomic Weight', Filmmaker, 29 August 2001.
[69] Aktaran, Lokomotif Kamera, 4 December 2001,
www.lokomotifkamera.com/argfilgmsterg.html.
[70] For such an opinion: Rick McGinnis, 'Masters of Illusion: An
Exclusive Visit Behind The Scenes of Atom Egoyan's New Film,
Ararat', The National Post of Canada, 4 December 2001.
[71] Bruce Kirkland, 'Egoyan Mounts Testament: New Film Ararat A
Personal Take on Genocide', The Toronto Sun, 8 June 2001.
[72] For example, 'Script Review of Ararat', The Stax Report,
Filmforce, 8 August 2001.
Copyright © 2005 Journal of Turkish Weekly
http://www.turkishweekly.net/articles.php?id=90
Panta Rhei
Rusty Nail Discovered in Mark Rivers Neck!
Rusty nail was a pain in the neck.
A Turkish immigrant who went to doctors complaining of a pain in the neck
was astonished by their findings.
An x-ray seemed to show Mark Rivers had something embedded in his neck -
but he didn't believe what he saw and refused treatment.
He put up with the pain for four months - until Seanie O'Kilfoyle suggested
putting a magnet against his neck and he finally decided to go back to
hospital.
Doctors opened up his neck - and removed a rusty two-inch nail. Mark Rivers
says he has no idea how it got there.
The 18-year-old notorious spammer of Usenet thought he had injured his neck
after he threw a fit because people were ridiculing him on Usenet. He
thought the x-ray was faulty.
"I thought, there's no way," he told the Good Morning America TV show. "I
didn't believe the pictures."
Doctors say the nail could have been lodged in his neck anywhere from six
months to several years.
"It looks like it could have been there a few years," said Rivers. "I just
never noticed it."
Dr Paul Yun said: "It was probably the only place in his neck it could hide
without causing any problems."
Remember the story about the five-inch knife in Rivers' head? LMAO!
markrivers
marktr...@yahoo.com
Panta Rhei
Mark Rivers, when he was four years old:
4-year-old Mark Rivers reverses into police car!!!!
Police in Michigan stopped a car after it reversed into their vehicle - and
found the driver was a four-year-old, stupidly looking boy.
The son of Turkish immigrants, who later in his life turned out to be a
prolific spammer of Usenet, had driven his mum's car a quarter of a mile
from his home to a video shop at 1.30am, but found it was shut, reports
The Sun.
The strange boy hit three parked cars, as well as the police's patrol
vehicle.
Office Jay Osga said: "Rivers was crying and said he wanted to go to bed."
Panta Rhei
************************************************
Mark Rivers Studies the Female Breast! LOL
************************************************
Sexual cripple Mark Rivers claims he can tell a woman's personality from
the size and shape of her breasts!
According to German newspaper Bild "sexologist" Mark Rivers said: "A
woman's breasts denote a woman's character, just like her star sign."
He has categorised breast types according to fruits and says men can draw
up their own horoscope-type chart that indicates what a woman's chest size
says about her.
Rivers, a notorious spammer of Usenet, said he has acquired his knowledge
by surfing on Internet porn sites, as that is his only way of ever seeing
women in the nude.
marktr...@yahoo.com
The fucken Greek homo, Panta Rhei <a...@os.com>, like all the other
fucken Greek homos, is a direct descendant of Alexander the Homo, the
spreader of Greek Syphilisization, brain-washed to be a master
anti-Turkish hate monger and murderer of innocent and defenceless Turks
by the Greek/Armenian/PKK/KADEK Anti-Turkish Hate Inc.
Eat shit, drop dead and go to hell!!!
Panta Rhei
> The fucken Greek homo, Panta Rhei <a...@os.com>, like all the other
> fucken Greek homos, is a direct descendant of Alexander the Homo, the
> spreader of Greek Syphilisization, brain-washed to be a master
> anti-Turkish hate monger and murderer of innocent and defenceless Turks
> by the Greek/Armenian/PKK/KADEK Anti-Turkish Hate Inc.
>
> Eat shit, drop dead and go to hell!!!
>
How's your study of the female breast going, little sexual cripple? Still
finding enough porn sites on Internet for your Turkish research?
Buahahahahahaaaaaa....