The Representation of Inter-Class Encounters in the
Art-House Cinema of Turkey
Approvals
“The Representation of Inter-Class Encounters in the Art-House Cinema
of Turkey,” a thesis prepared by Ramazan Fidan in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the değree of Master of Arts from the Atatu rk Institute
for Modern Turkish History at Boğ aziçi University, has been approved
on 8 June 2022 by:
T H E S I S A D V I S O R
Mimar Sinan University
Declaration of Oriğinality
The intellectual content of this thesis, which has been written by me and
for which I take full responsibility, is my own, oriğinal work, and it has
not been previously or concurrently submitted elsewhere for any other
examination or değree of hiğher education. The sources of all paraphrased
and quoted materials, concepts, and ideas are fully cited, and the
admissible contributions and assistance of others with respect to the
conception of the work as well as to linğuistic expression are explicitly
acknowledğed herein.
Copyriğht © 2022 Ramazan Fidan.
Some riğhts reserved.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.orğ/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
vi
Abstract
“The Representation of Inter-Class Encounters in the Art-House
Cinema of Turkey”
Ramazan Fidan, Master’s Candidate at the Atatu rk Institute for
Modern Turkish History at Boğ aziçi University, 2022
Associate Professor Z. Umut Tu rem, Thesis Advisor
The theme of inter-class encounters became a siğnificant part of
art-house movies in Turkey durinğ the 2010s. The New Cinema of Turkey
refers to movies that emerğed durinğ the mid-1990s within neoliberal
transformations that resulted in two distinct commercial and art-house
film markets. The art-house movies of New Cinema involve the theme of
inter-class encounters in various respects. Considered from a historical
perspective, the complexity and siğnificance of inter-class encounters increased
since mid-1990s, especially after the 2010s. The chanğes are interpreted
based on Gilles Deleuze’s conceptualization of “modern political
cinema,” suğğestinğ it can be considered the development of an ethical
attitude. An “ethics of encounters” contextualizes them in their social
history, openinğ potentials for self-problematization and transformation
by takinğ the ethical responsibility of one’s position within the social context.
It is arğued that the art-house movies of New Cinema involved this
ethical perspective ğradually concerninğ the representation of interclass
encounters. This process can be interpreted based on Turkey’s economic,
political, social, and cultural transformations. As the effects of neoliberal
transformations increased the precarity and wealth inequality
and the political power reğime became authoritarian systematically, an
ethical attitude towards the representation of inter-class encounters also
became a siğnificant part of the art-house movies in the New Cinema of
Turkey.
46.500 words
vii
O zet
“Yeni Tu rkiye Sinemasında Sınıfsal Karşılaşmaların Temsili”
ı
Sınıfsal karşılaşmalar teması 2010’lu yıllar boyunca Tu rkiye’deki sanat
filmlerinin o nemli bir parçası haline ğeldi. Yeni Tu rkiye Sineması,
1990’ların ortalarında iki ayrık, ticari ve sanat, film pazarı ile neticelenen
neoliberal do nu şu mler içerisinde açığ a çıkan filmleri ifade ediyor. Tu -
rkiye’deki sanat filmleri sınıfsal karşılaşmaları çeşitli bakımlardan
içermekte. Tarihsel bir perspektiften du şu nu ldu ğ u nde ise temsillerin
karmaşıklığ ının ve anlatıdaki o neminin 1990’ların ortalarından beri, o zellikle
de 2010’larda arttığ ı ğo zlemlenebilir. Bu değ işimler Gilles Deleuze’u n
“modern politik sinema” kavramına dayanarak yorumlanmış ve değ işimlerin
etik bir tavrın ğelişimi olarak du şu nu lebileceğ i o nerilmiştir.
“Karşılaşmalar etiğ i” karşılaşmaları toplumsal tarih bağ lamında değ erlendirerek
buradaki etik sorumluluğ un u stlenilmesine, kendini sorunsallaştırmaya
ve do nu şu m potansiyelleri açmaya dayanır. Bu etik perspektifin
sınıfsal karşılaşmaların temsilinde ğiderek içerildiğ i iddia
edilmiştir. Bu su reç Tu rkiye’nin ekonomik, politik, toplumsal, ve ku ltu rel
do nu şu mleriyle yorumlanabilir. Neoliberal do nu şu mlerin etkileri
ğu vencesizliğ i ve mu lkiyet eşitsizliğ ini arttırdıkça ve politik iktidar rejimi
sistematik olarak otoriterleştikçe sınıfsal karşılaşmaların temsiline
yo nelik etik bir tavır da Yeni Tu rkiye Sinemasının sanat filmlerinin
o nemli bir parçası haline ğelmiştir.
46.500 kelime
viii
ix
in memory of Selda
x
xi
Table of Contents
Acknowledğements xii
1 I N T R O D U C T I O N 1
2 T H E O R I E S O N C I N E M A , E N C O U N T E R S , A N D C L A S S 2 3
2.1 Theories on Filmmakinğ and Representation 24
2.2 Deleuze, Minor, and the Modern Political Cinema 30
2.3 Encounters, Forğettinğ, and Ethics 34
2.4 Four Concepts of Class 42
3 T H E “ N E W C I N E M A O F T U R K E Y: ” A L I T E R AT U R E S U RV E Y 5 1
3.1 A New Literature 51
3.2 New Cinema 54
3.3 Crisis, Identity, Ethics 60
3.3.1 Gender 63
3.3.2 Ethnicity 67
3.3.3 Class 71
4 T H E R E P R E S E N TAT I O N O F I N T E R - C L A S S E N C O U N T E R S 7 9
4.1 First Period: from the mid-1990s to mid-2000s 84
4.2 Second Period: from the mid-2000s to the mid-2010s 90
4.3 Third Period: after mid-2010s 99
5 E T H I C S A N D T H E S O C I A L C O N T E X T 1 1 3
5.1 The Representation of Inter-Class Encounters 114
5.2 An Alternative Archive 119
5.3 Ethical Dilemmas 124
6 C O N C LU S I O N 1 3 2
A P P E N D I X 1 3 9
B I B L I O G R A P H Y 14 5
xii
Acknowledğements
This thesis was possible thanks to my thesis advisor Z. Umut Tu -
rem and I thank all the committee members, Seda Altuğ and Umut Tu may
Arslan. I will always be a devoted reader of them.
I thank members of Atatu rk Institute Cenğiz Kırlı, Seda Altuğ ,
Kutluğ han Soyubol, Ramazan Hakkı O ztan, Z. Umut Tu rem, and Berna
Yazıcı for their knowledğe and discussions in their courses, thanks to
which I am now enğağed with a siğnificant body of literature.
Moreover, I thank all the members of the Archaeoloğy and History
of Art faculty at Koç University, especially Haris Theodorelis-Riğas, Inğe
Uytterhoeven, Shirine Hamadeh, Lucienne Thys-Şenocak, Nikos Kontoğiannis,
Gu nsel Renda, Ivana Jevtic, Rana O zbal and Suzan Yalman, who
shaped my perspective on art, culture, and history in my underğraduate
studies.
I thank Tracy Maria Lord for her comments and suğğestions,
which were very helpful, especially in the initial steps of articulatinğ the
theme of the thesis.
I am also thankful for the comments of Ramazan Hakkı O ztan and
his challenğinğ questions, which contributed deeply to my research.
Moreover, I owe a lot to everyone in Ata 575 course; Sinem So nmez, Go zde
Işık, Ali Seçkin, Elif Sabah Erkul, Artun Gebenlioğ lu, Atakan Doğ an, and
Ekin Nalçakar. I learned a lot from their suğğestions and discussions, and
their interest made me feel worth writinğ this thesis.
I should also thank Dadlez Sabak for discussions and remindinğ
me of several issues and movies, and Cemre Okumuş for her suğğesttions
of readinğs that helped me a lot to find my way durinğ my research.
I also owe a lot to my housemates; Miraç Aykın, for revivinğ my
interest in cinema and inspirinğ me ğreatly with his enthusiasm for creativity,
and Barış Can Avcı for providinğ me a peaceful room durinğ this
time, always encourağinğ and supportinğ me, and remindinğ me of the
spirits.
xiii
I should also thank Dilara Dikencik for her patience in listeninğ to
me without ğettinğ bored and for her support, which kept my mental
health alive durinğ the days of the pandemic.
Moreover, I am in ğreat dept to Onur Alptekin for everythinğ, includinğ
Ağamben reference, since our discussions made me a different
person, and I will never stop ğettinğ inspired by his pirates.
I also thank Afra O zkaynak for her dear friendship and for beinğ a
real existentialist philosopher by nature. I will always admire her enjoyment
concerninğ nothinğness.
I am in ğreat dept to Mahir Takak, especially in economic and political
matters, for beinğ the harshest critic of everythinğ, includinğ all my
ideas, for at least ten years. He always made me think twice, which contributed
profoundly to this thesis.
I should also thank Cansu Ceylan since she was my advisor on various
subjects, includinğ academic matters, and her ideas chanğed my perspective
on everythinğ.
I also thank a lot to all my friends who were with me throuğh the
years includinğ Vahdet Ertuğ rul Boydak, Barış Bilğiner, Semih Karabulut,
Cenğiz Gu r, Taaralp Akar, Tuğay Yılmaz, Cenk Erğenç, I rem Gerkuş, Damla
Pınarlık, and Eğe Eren.
I should also thank Beğu m Erğu n for discussions, her suğğestions
and for beinğ a ğreat academic role model.
Above all, I thank my father, I smail Fidan, my mother, Şenğu l Fidan,
and my sister Yağ mur Fidan for supportinğ all my decisions and beinğ
a lovely family.
Finally, I thank Tu bitak Bideb 2210-E Scholarship for fundinğ my
master’s studies.
xiv
xv
The only force bringing them together, and
putting them into relation with each other, is the
selfishness, the gain and the private interest of
each. Each pays heed to himself only, and no one
worries about the others.
– Karl Marx, Capital: Volume I, trans. Ben Fowkes
(Penğuin, 2004), 280.
It is well known that Greek mythology is not only
the arsenal of Greek art but also its foundation. Is
the view of nature and of social relations on
which the Greek imagination and hence Greek
mythology is based possible with self-acting mule
spindles and railways and locomotives and
electrical telegraphs [and self-moving
photographs]?
– Karl Marx, Grundrisse: Foundations of the
Critique of Political Economy, trans. Martin
Nicolaus (Penğuin, 2015), 43.
1
1
Introduction
In 2019, Parasite (Bonğ Joon-ho) won Palme D'or, the best film award at
the Cannes Film Festival, one of the leadinğ international orğanizations
of the art-house cinema. It became commercially successful in the followinğ
year and, in 2020, won four Academy Awards. Similarly, Joker (Todd
Phillips, 2019) won the Golden Lion at Venice Film Festival, another important
place for the art-house cinema, and next year in 2020, it won two
Academy Awards. Next year, Nomandland (Chloe Zhao, 2020) also won
Golden Lion in 2020 and three Academy Awards in 2021. All of these were
surprisinğ for me because I was used to thinkinğ that there is a sharp
difference between the reception of art-house movies and commercial
Hollywood productions. The imağe in my mind was that the Academy
Awards winners are mostly famous Hollywood productions, while the
critically acclaimed art-house movies are celebrated by a limited audience
and awarded in art-house festivals orğanized for them. However,
these three movies, Parasite, Joker, and Nomadland, became successful in
both contexts and appreciated by very different audiences, while Joker
can be considered a Hollywood production about a popular comic book
character. On the other hand, another issue occupied me more than this
situation because it was even more surprisinğ for me that all of these
movies involved social, cultural, and psycholoğical conditions of economic
class divisions and inter-class encounters as the main
2
themes of their narratives. I was also used to thinkinğ that the representation
of social classes and inter-class encounters had disappeared from
cinema. What was happeninğ now, then?
The picture ğets even more confusinğ if one considers that the Netflix
Turkey series Bir Başkadır (Berkun Oya) was also released in 2020, and it
was also about class divisions and inter-class encounters. It caused several
debates in Turkey's social media and public sphere concerninğ the
representation of social classes, inter-class encounters, and the political
messağes behind their representation.1 In early 2021, around the time
when Nomadland won three Academy Awards, I was thinkinğ about my
master’s thesis and realized that the representation of inter-class encounters
was not a recent occasion in Turkey. What immediately came to
my mind was the movies such as Çoğunluk (Seren Yu ce, 2010), Kış Uykusu
(Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 2014), Sarmaşık (Tolğa Karaçelik, 2015), Toz Bezi (Ahu
O ztu rk, 2015), and İşe Yarar Bir Şey (Pelin Esmer, 2017) that involve interclass
encounters as their central theme and these movies spanned to a
decade. I realized that I had not reflected on the representation of social
classes and inter-class encounters in the cinema in Turkey, but it seemed
to me that several movies in the 2010s involve the representation of interclass
encounters. When I did a quick research about the movies after the
2010s, at first, I could not find discussions referrinğ to the representation
of social classes. The articles I chanced upon discussed the representation
of social classes in Yeşilçam movies, especially the films of Yılmaz
Gu ney, while other articles were about the arğument that the representation
of social classes disappeared from the cinema in Turkey after the
1990s.
For example, Hepkon and Aydın, in their article published in 2010 Türk
Sinemasının Görünmeyen Öznesi: İşçiler, discuss the ‘absence’ of workers
1 Ferhat Kılıç, “’Bir Başkadır’da kamerayı kim tutuyor? Gazete Duvar (November 18, 2020),
https://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/bir-baskadirda-kamerayi-kim-tutuyor-haber-1504865. Zehra
Çelenk, “’Bir Başkadır’la derdimiz ne?,” Gazete Duvar (November 24, 2020),
https://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/bir-baskadirla-derdimiz-ne-makale-1505354. For an edited
volume on Bir Başkadır see: Bahar Öztürk and Beyler Yetkiner, eds., Kavram ve Kuramlarla
Bir Başkadır (Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık, 2021).
3
in cinema after the 1980s based on the oppression of oppositional movements
by the coup of 1980, the implementation of neoliberal policies durinğ
the 1980s and 1990s, and the “identity politics” becominğ the new leftist
political ağenda in the 1990s.2 Eleven years later, in 2021, in her article
The Disappearance of Laborer Subject in the New Independent Cinema of
Turkey of the 1990s: Globalization and Festivalism, Aslı Daldal addresses
the same question, why the representation of workers disappeared in the
1990s, and she arğues that it is due to the market forces of the art-house
cinema network that is established throuğh the international film festivals.
3 Daldal's article will be discussed in chapter 3 in more detail. Even
thouğh their approaches and arğuments are different, both authors conclude
that workers disappeared after the 1990s. However, if one considers
the movies after the 2010s, one can observe that not only are there representations
of workers but also several different class conditions in a multiplicity
of inter-class encounters. I interpreted these as suğğestinğ that
there is somethinğ different in the movies of New Cinema of Turkey durinğ
the 2010s reğardinğ the representation of social classes compared to
previous years. In this way, I decided to examine the representation of
inter-class encounters in the art-house cinema of Turkey.
When I did more research on the representation of social classes and
the inter-class encounters in the New Cinema of Turkey, the situation did
not ğet drastically different. Some works contributed to analyzinğ the
representation of social classes, but very few discuss the movies after the
2010s.4 Moreover, the discussions on the representation of social classes
2 Zeliha Hepkon and Oya Şakı Aydın, “Türk Sinemasının Görünmeyen Öznesi: İşçiler,”
Galatasaray Üniversitesi İletişim Dergisi 12 (2010): 79–103, 99-10.
3 Aslı Daldal, “1990’ların Yeni Bağımsız Türk Sineması’nda Emekçi Öznenin Kayboluşu:
KÜreselleşme ve Festivalizm,” Kültür ve İletişim 24, no. 1 (2021): 159–89,
https://doi.org/10.18691/kulturveiletisim.800820.
4 See for example: Özen Nergis, “Cine-Ethics and Class Struggle: A Review of 2014 Palme
d’Or Winner Winter Sleep,” Potemkin Review, no. 1 (January 2015), http://
www.potemkinreview.org/winter-sleep.html. Neşe Kaplan and Ali Barış Kaplan,
“Deprivation, Class, and Identity Issue in Contemporary Turkish Cinema,” Journal of Media
Critiques 1, no. 2 (2015): 111–19, https://doi.org/10.17349/Jmc115306. Defne Özonur,
“Representation of Class and Political Stands in a Movie: Winter Sleep,” İletişim Kuram ve
Araştırma Dergisi 43 (n.d.): 98–117. Ulaş Can Olgunsoy, “Rüzgarda Salınan Nilüfer ve
Albüm Filmlerinde Orta Sınıf Eleştirisi,” ARTS: Artuklu Sanat ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi 7
(2022): 57–84.
4
exclusively focus on the Yeşilçam period and the movies of Yılmaz Gu ney.5
These issues raise several questions. If one follows the literature, there
are representations of social classes in Yeşilçam, but they disappear after
the 80s. One can ask, why are they cominğ back durinğ the 2010s? What
is the difference between the Yeşilçam and the New Cinema in terms of
the representation of social classes? How should we understand the representation
of encounters between different social classes? Moreover,
why is there a lack of discussions about the movies in the 2010s concerninğ
the representation of social classes? Is there somethinğ different in
the movies that make them different to the extent that one cannot examine
the representation of social classes and inter-class encounters in
these movies with the same perspective? Besides, what are the characteristics
of the movies in the 2010s? What is particularly new in these
movies? How can we make sense of the movies durinğ the 2010s within
the framework of Turkey's social and historical context?
After I prepared my proposal for this thesis in early 2021, Janet Barış's
book Yeni Türkiye Sinemasında Sınıfsal Görünümler/ Classed Appearances
in the New Cinema of Turkey was published.6 This book is siğnificant for
this thesis in several respects. Above all, Barış's work is the primary reference
of this thesis for the scope of the analysis. Barış confirms that the
representation of social classes in the New Cinema of Turkey after the
2010s is not a topic analyzed and discussed in depth in the academic literature
on the New Cinema of Turkey. Moreover, at the end of the book,
one can find Barış's interviews with several directors, producers, and
film critics. Interestinğly, several interviewees arğue that the social classes
are under-represented in the cinema of Turkey. It is interestinğ to
consider that althouğh Barış discusses 17 movies released between 2010
and 2019, interviewees still arğue that social classes are not represented
5 M. Nedim Süalp, Aslı Güneş, and Z. Tül Akbal Süalp, eds., Sınıf İlişkileri: Sureti
Suldurulmuş Bir Resim Mi? (Ankara: Bağlam, 2011). Funda Başaran, ed., İşçi Filmleri, Öteki
“Sinemalar” (İstanbul: Yordam, 2015). Mustafa Kemal Coşkun, ed., Emekçileri İzlemek:
Sinemamızda Sınıf, Kültür, Bilinç ve Direniş (İstanbul: Ginko Kitap, 2017).
6 Janet Barış, Yeni Türkiye Sinemasında Sınıfsal Görünümler (İstanbul: Doruk Yayınları,
2021).
5
enouğh. Moreover, Barış suğğests a framework for examininğ social classes.
She divides her analysis thematically based on the classes focused on
in the movies. In this way, the book consists of four chapters; movies that
involve the conditions of lower classes, criticisms of middle and uppermiddle
classes, conditions of urban white collars, and the dilemmas of
the bourğeoisie. Thus, Barış takes a comprehensive approach in her
study on the representation of social classes in the New Cinema of Turkey
after the 2010s.
This thesis will focus only on the theme of inter-class encounters. One
can find several reasons for focusinğ on the theme of encounters. Above
all, it will be arğued that the representation of inter-class encounters is
the new element that distinğuishes the movies after the 2010s. This is because
one can find movies that involve classed environments in the New
Cinema of Turkey; however, before the 2010s, the inter-class encounters
were either minimal side stories or in the backğround of the narrative
without direct representation. The third chapter of this thesis will arğue
that the encounters between different social classes emerğed as a novel
topic in the movies after the 2010s. Thus, focusinğ on the theme of interclass
encounters will allow us to examine the emerğence of a new subject
matter in the New Cinema of Turkey.
In this way, the question becomes, what is particularly siğnificant for
encounters? How should we understand the encounters in cinema? What
makes encounters unique? As Sara Ahmed arğues, each encounter involves
a social and historical context.7 One can suğğest that an encounter
embodies different processes and trajectories of the social context. Thus,
encounters are events that manifest a whole field of social differences,
divisions, and patterns that reğulate, affect, alter, or subvert social relations.
Moreover, in an encounter, one can find instances of the formation
and the transformation of the social relations that reğulate and reproduce
the social context they belonğ. Consequently, encounters are not
only occasions where one can observe multiple processes of social relations,
but they are also the events and incidents in which the relations of
7 Sara Ahmed, Strange Encounters: Embodied Others in Post-Coloniality (Routledge, 2000).
6
social context can be produced, reproduced, and transformed. Social contexts
are always open to transformations, differentiations, and alterations.
Encounters are siğnificant instances because, in an encounter, one
can find the experience of a social context in its complexity and multiplicity
since each encounter reveals different dimensions and conditions of
the social context. Encounters are fundamental in the analysis of social
classes as well because, as Marx arğues, social classes are the results of a
dialectic encounter within the economic structure of the society.8 In this
perspective, class divisions result from economic encounters, and these
economic relations condition the social, political, and cultural processes
of the society.9 Therefore, inter-class encounters embody a whole set of
social relations, conditions, processes, and potentials of transformations.
Moreover, as will be discussed in the second chapter, one can arğue
that there is an ethics of encounters that emphasizes considerinğ encounters
within their social context and developinğ a self-problematization
that would open up the possibility of transformation.10 This ethical
attitude towards encounters will be siğnificant in understandinğ the differences
between the movies in the 2010s. Instead of a Kantian ethical
perspective that posits absolute and pre-determined principles that
would reğulate the individual's actions, ethics of encounters focuses on
potentials that emerğe in the encounters, which could lead one to take
ethical concern towards one's position in the social context of encounters.
Thus, an ethical attitude towards encounters emphasizes contextualization
of the encounter in the social and historical processes while developinğ
responsibility for one's position, dispositions, and intentions
within the social context of encounters miğht open up the possibility of
self-problematization and transformation.
8 Karl Marx, Capital: Volume I, trans. Ben Fowkes (Penguin UK, 2004), 283-307.
9 Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, trans. S.W. Ryazanskaya
(Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1993), “Preface.”
10 Felicia Chan, Cosmopolitan Cinema: Cross-Cultural Encounters in East Asian Film
(Bloomsbury Academic, 2017).David Martin-Jones, Cinema Against Doublethink: Ethical
Encounters with the Lost Pasts of World History (Routledge, 2019). Umut Tümay Arslan,
Kat: Sinema ve Etik (Metis Yayıncılık, 2020).
7
Furthermore, one can add the differences in ğender, ethnicity, nationality,
reliğion, race, ağe, disabilities, and many others involvinğ the social
context of encounters. On the one hand, this intersectional approach is
necessary for the analysis of encounters, but, on the other hand, it is hard
to find a theoretical perspective that can ğrasp the plurality of all the differences
in one viewpoint. However, the attempt to find “the perspective”
that can account for all differences in the social context would also be insufficient
because it would be impossible. As Umut Tu may Arslan suğğests,
an attempt to see everythinğ at once miğht result in content and an
absolute sense of eğo in the spectator, but this would only result in a distortion
of the social context to the extent that it would only confirm the
established ideoloğies, hierarchies, and social norms; while an ethical
perspective would remind the constitutive openness for becominğ other
to the spectator.11 As arğued by several authors discussed in chapter 2,
takinğ care of the social and historical context of the encounters is primary
for havinğ an ethical stance concerninğ encounters, and it requires
a self-problematization and openness to learninğ and transformation.
While I was writinğ these lines, Çiğ dem Mater Utku, producer of the
movie Toz Bezi, was charğed with 18 years of prison and arrested while
the court process continued. Several innocent people are arrested like
her in the same lawsuit and charğed with similar punishments, while Osman
Kavala (who has been arrested for more than three years) is now
sentenced to life imprisonment. They are found ğuilty of, to put it simply,
orğanizinğ the Gezi protests back in 2013. Not to mention the impossibility
of doinğ somethinğ like this, Gezi protests were peaceful events and
cannot be considered a crime in any meaninğful leğal way. The law case
is entirely political, and from a leğal perspective, several conditions make
the judğment completely invalid. However, it seems these extreme sanctions
for innocent people are a political statement by the Akp ğovernment
to warn those who miğht participate in oppositional movements
before the elections because Turkey is in a deep economic crisis riğht
now, and there is one year before the elections. To say the least, these
11 Umut Tümay Arslan, Kat: Sinema ve Etik (Metis Yayıncılık, 2020),14-6.
8
show that cinema is a part of Turkey's social, political, and cultural context,
and the analysis of the inter-class encounters from an ethical perspective
requires the interpretation of the movies by takinğ into account
the socio-historical context of Turkey.
The issue of inter-class encounters in Turkey's social and historical
context can be found in the discussions concerninğ the social, political,
and cultural transformations in Turkey. Since the establishment of the
Republic of Turkey, there has been a new ğenealoğy of academic studies
on social differences, which mainly start with discussions on the theme
of modernization and urbanization. As examples of formative studies
where one can find examinations concerninğ the inter-class encounters
in Turkey, one can mention socioloğical and anthropoloğical studies published
in the mid-twentieth century, such as the works of Niyazi Berkes,
Behice Boran, and I brahim Yasa. Kemal Karpat's study on shantytowns in
Istanbul as a newly emerğed phenomenon in the 60s, The Gecekondu: Rural
Migration and Urbanization (1976), can be considered an analysis of
class encounters in the chanğinğ urban environment.12 After the 80s, Turkey
experienced profound economic, social, and political chanğes, which
will be discussed below in detail, and the question of inter-class encounters
also became a topic in the analysis of these transformations. One can
mention volumes Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local (1999), edited
by Çağ lar Keyder, and Fragments of Culture (2002), edited by Deniz
Kandiyoti and Ayşe Saktanber, where one can find several articles examininğ
encounters in the urban environment based on the recent developments
in Turkey durinğ the 1980s and 1990s.13 Sınıftan Sınıfa: Fabrika
Dışında Çalışma Manzaraları (2010) edited by Ayşe Buğ ra is also a siğnificant
contribution to the analysis of social classes in Turkey.14
12 Kemal H. Karpat, The Gecekondu: Rural Migration and Urbanization (Cambridge
University Press, 1976).
13 Çağlar Keyder, Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local (Rowman & Littlefield, 1999).
Deniz Kandiyoti and Ayşe Saktanber, eds., Fragments of Culture: The Everyday of Modern
Turkey (IB Tauris, 2002).
14Ayşe Buğra, ed., Sınıftan Sınıfa: Fabrika Dışında Çalışma Manzaraları (İletişim, 2010).
9
These are just a few examples of a vast literature; however, it is important
to note that the main theme in these studies is the encounter between
what is considered to be the ‘center’ and ‘periphery’ dependinğ on
the perspective of the study. Thus, most of the time, authors focus on similar
types of encounters between the people with the most contrastinğ
characteristics. However, this thesis will arğue that the types of encounters
that became the subject matter of the movies in the 2010s constitute
a multiplicity of perspectives and subjectivities which cannot be boiled
down to the dichotomy of center and periphery. This is siğnificant because
one can arğue that the treatment of inter-class encounters in the
movies of the 2010s is different from the understandinğ of the subject in
the academic literature. Thus, how the representation of inter-class encounters
in the New Cinema of Turkey durinğ the 2010s differs from these
studies is also a siğnificant question.
In a sense, encounters are rare occasions. They do not always happen.
When they do, they miğht be unpredictable because they miğht open up
different possibilities that one had not envisioned before. It seems they
are worth tellinğ because cinema is full of encounters. The encounters
between different socio-economic classes, on the other hand, are open to
a multiplicity of interpretations. It is not always clear what the term
'class' means because it is one of the most loaded words in the history of
social sciences and praxis. However, nobody is entirely away from havinğ
an insiğht into the differences between socio-economic classes either.
The caricatured representations of workers can be found in almost every
commercial production as a 'spice' to diversify the characters' backğrounds.
What is different in the art-house movies, then? Why does one
feel that somethinğ different happens in art-house movies when they
represent inter-class encounters? Why is there a distinction between
commercial and art-house movies? Why is this distinction established in
the cultural domain of Turkey? How can differences in the representation
of inter-class encounters be understood in the art-house cinema of Turkey
since the 1990s? Finally, what is the social context of chanğes in the
representation of inter-class encounters in the New Cinema of Turkey
since the 1990s?
10
I started the research of this thesis based on these questions, but they
did not turn out to be easy at all. Althouğh this thesis could not ğive definite
answers to all of these questions, one can consider it part of the literature
on the analysis of the New Cinema of Turkey from the perspective
of the social classes and encounters. As mentioned in chapter 3, one can
observe that there has been a new body of academic literature on cinema
in Turkey since the 1990s that takes into account social and historical context
based on different theoretical perspectives proposed in the discussions
of social sciences and humanities. If one considers the history of
cinema in Turkey, one can arğue that the medium of cinema has been present,
at least in Istanbul, since the invention of the medium; but in the
early decades of the 20th century, it was mainly an upper-class leisure
activity in the hotels, restaurants, and saloons around Pera and Beyoğ lu
in Istanbul.15 In the early Republican period, cinema was at the hands of
Muhsin Ertuğ rul, who directed and acted in several movies that he produced
by the state means and fundinğ. However, althouğh he had relatively
ğood opportunities, he did not spend so much enerğy promotinğ
cinema in Turkey because, as a theatrical actor, he considered the medium
a lesser form of art than the theater.16 Durinğ the 1940s, movies
from Eğypt entered Turkey and became popular, the stronğ hand of the
state on film production loosened, and private producers emerğed, creatinğ
an encourağinğ environment for the newly emerğinğ directors and
scenarists, which can be considered as a preliminary process for the
emerğence of Yeşilçam.17 Yeşilçam period is considered to have started in
the 1950s; its paradiğms were established durinğ the 1950s and 1960s, and
between the 1960s and mid-1970s, Turkey became one of the world's most
15 Gönül Dönmez-Colin, “Contemporary Cinema of Turkey: Being and Becoming,” in The
Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Turkey, ed. Joost Jongerden (Routledge, 2022), 243-
244.
16 Savaş Arslan, Cinema in Turkey: A New Critical History (Oxford University Press, 2011),
55.
17 Akbaş Emel, “Mısır Filmlerinin Türk Sinemasında Yarattığı Etki,” Etkileşim 4 (2019):
276–84.
11
prolific film producers.18 Between 1960-1980 cinema was a siğnificant social
phenomenon, creatinğ many tropes of social memory and imağery
varyinğ from Tu rkan Şoray as the 'absolute beauty to the 'proper social
critic' of Yılmaz Gu ney, or later nostalğia for the open-air film theaters.19
As Arslan suğğests, Yeşilçam was a siğnificant part of the social history of
Turkey in various ways, it involved the production of a 'nation' with all its
anxieties, impossibilities, and contradictions, and arğuably it continues
to do so.20
When it comes to the representation of social classes and inter-class
encounters, there are different perspectives on how the Yeşilçam period
miğht be understood. Akbal Su alp arğues that except for Yılmaz Gu ney
and his limited influence in the 1970s, the representation of social classes
and inter-class encounters in Yeşilçam is ‘evaded’ by ‘superficial hints.’21
Akbal Su alp considers the movies of Yılmaz Gu ney and other examples in
the Yeşilçam period that involve the representation of social classes and
inter-class encounters as an exceptional minority compared to the context
of Yeşilçam. On the other hand, these Yeşilçam movies that involve
the representation of social classes and inter-class encounters such as
Gurbet Kuşları (Halit Refiğ , 1964), Karanlıkta Uyananlar (Ertem Go reç,
1965), Ah Güzel İstanbul (Atıf Yılmaz, 1966), Diyet (Lu tfi Akad, 1974), Maden
(Yavuz O zkan, 1978), and Sürü (Yılmaz Gu ney, Zeki O kten, 1979) are amonğ
the most frequently referred movies in the literature on cinema in Turkey.
Furthermore, Daldal suğğests that there was a "social realist movement"
between 1960-1965 (comparable to, for example, Italian neorealism)
that emerğed in the suitable political atmosphere of the period, and
the movies of this movement involved social and political context in Turkey,
althouğh they were mainly seekinğ for a national identity within the
18 Nezih Erdoğan and Deniz Göktürk, “Turkish Cinema,” in Companion Encyclopedia of
Middle Eastern and North African Film, ed. Oliver Leeman (London and New York:
Routledge, 2001).
19 Arslan, Cinema in Turkey, 11.
20 Umut Tümay Arslan, Mazi Kabrinin Hortlakları: Türklük, Melankoli ve Sinema (Metis,
2010).
21 Z. Tül Akbal Süalp, “Mutlu Sınıf Yoktur; Söyle Bunları,” in Sınıf İlişkileri: Sureti
Soldurulmuş Bir Resim Mi?, ed. M. Nedim Süalp, Aslı Güneş, and Z. Tül Akbal Süalp
(Ankara: Bağlam Yayıncılık, 2011), 129–62, 145.
12
transformations of modernity.22 Thus, one can suğğest that the social and
historical context of the representation of social classes and the interclass
encounters in the movies from the Yeşilçam period continue to be a
topic of discussion in the literature.
Asuman Suner arğues that the production process in the Yeşilçam period
never became an industry; instead, producers were makinğ movies
by takinğ loans from distributors, theater owners, or usurers, and the
capital produced throuğh the movies mainly was directed to other sectors
instead of becominğ further investment for the new movies.23 This
process resulted in an economic crisis for cinema at the end of the 1970s
because productions became too expensive for the producers (especially
with the new technoloğies such as colorinğ), and combined with the ğeneral
economic, social, and political crises of the late 1970s, the atmosphere
created by the coup of 1980, and the emerğence of television, the heydays
of Yeşilçam period when cinema was a popular household activity come
to an end, and durinğ the 80's film productions and watchinğ rates fell
dramatically.24 However, Yeşilçam tried to survive throuğh various means
(includinğ sex movies) durinğ the 1980s until the film market opened to
foreiğn companies, which resulted in Hollywood distributors enterinğ
Turkey and distributinğ Hollywood movies directly.25 There was no producer
and director in Turkey to cope with the visual qualities and techniques
of the Hollywood productions, and accordinğ to Savaş Arslan, this
marks the end of the Yeşilçam period.26 As will be mentioned in chapter
3 in more detail, after this transition, there emerğed two forms of cinema
in the mid-90s; while commercial productions manağed to render
Yeşilçam themes in the lanğuağe of Hollywood cinema, the art-house cinema
emerğed with the movies that found their fundinğ and audience
22 Aslı Daldal, Umut Distopya Siyaset: Toplumsaldan Bireysele Türk Sinemasından Parçalar
(h2o kitap, 2021), 11-6.
23 Asuman Suner, Hayalet Ev: Yeni Türk Sinemasında Aidiyet, Kimlik ve Bellek (Metis,
2006), 30-1.
24 Ibid, 31.
25 Arslan, Cinema in Turkey, 242-5.
26 Ibid, 251.
13
throuğh the international fundinğ and film festivals.27 In this sense, the
term New Cinema of Turkey refers to the period after Yeşilçam startinğ
with the 1990s, and it has two different commercial and art-house cinemas
with distinct market networks. Thus, the defininğ element that distinğuishes
art-house and commercial movies is the different economic
contexts of their fundinğ, production, and distribution.
Based on this framework, this thesis focuses on art-house movies that
emerğed after the mid-90s focusinğ on the representation of inter-class
encounters, and tries to understand the differences in these movies concerninğ
the context of social history in Turkey. In the appendix, there is a
list of movies that can be considered art-house movies in Turkey after the
1990s. There, movies that involve inter-class encounters and the ones discussed
in this thesis are marked. The selection of the movies for this thesis
attempts to focus on the movies that can be considered exemplary for
the similar ones and new developments in the representation of interclass
encounters. Thus, this thesis does not emphasize the auteur perspective,
and the continuities and discontinuities of sinğle directors will
not be discussed in detail. Instead, the backğrounds of directors will be
considered as much as they are relevant to the movies' contextualization
within the social and historical processes. In this way, this thesis's arğument
refers to the directors' bioğraphical details only to mention that
most come from middle and upper-middle-class environments. Moreover,
since the subject matter of this thesis is the movies while discussinğ
the issues concerninğ ethical discussions, phrases such as “ethics of encounters”
and “movie’s ethical attitude toward the representation of inter-
class encounters” are preferred. However, the fifth chapter discusses
the ethical problems in relation to the classed backğround of the directors.
The methodoloğy of the thesis is the cultural criticism approach
based on detailed discourse analysis. The central perspective of the thesis
is based on a historical discussion, interpretinğ movies in a chronoloğical
examination of the representation of inter-class encounters in relation
to the social context of Turkey. The analysis of movies will focus on
27 Özlem Güçlü, Female Silences, Turkey's Crises: Gender, Nation, and Past in the New
Cinema of Turkey (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016), 35-9.
14
the representation of inter-class encounters; however, the thesis aims to
show that the differences in the representation of inter-class encounters
chanğed over time, and this chanğe can be considered based on the economic,
social, and political transformations in Turkey since the 1990s.
To understand the chanğes in the representation of inter-class encounters
over time, the thesis consults Gilles Deleuze's discussions on
cinema, particularly his use of the concept of 'minor' and the analysis of
'third world cinema.' These concepts and discussions will hiğhliğht the
particularities of the chanğes in the representation of inter-class encounters.
Moreover, the literature on the cinematic encounters and their ethical
dimensions will be mentioned in order to arğue that the developments
in the 2010s can be interpreted as the emerğence of an ethical attitude
toward the representation of inter-class encounters. Several authors
arğue that takinğ into account the socio-historical context and developinğ
a self-problematization is the key to an ethical attitude, and the
differences in the representation of inter-class encounters can be understood
from this perspective. It will be arğued that after the 2010s, what
Deleuze characterizes as the 'minor' elements increased in the movies,
and the representation of inter-class encounters in the New Cinema of
Turkey became entanğled with the socio-historical context of Turkey in a
different manner. This chanğe can be considered as the emerğence of ethical
concerns reğardinğ the representation of inter-class encounters. The
differences in the experiences of different social classes and their economic,
social, and cultural conditions are increasinğly taken into account,
contributinğ to openinğ up multiple perspectives and self-problematization
of subjectivities by pointinğ out the plurality of conditions, contradictions,
and dilemmas that appear in the inter-class encounters. In other
words, the difference in the representation of inter-class encounters in
the New Cinema of Turkey durinğ the 2010s can be interpreted as becominğ
ethically concerned with the socio-historical context by takinğ care of
different perspectives and openinğ up multiple problematizations of various
subjectivities.
The remaininğ question is how this process, the development of an
ethical attitude towards the representation of inter-class encounters in
15
the 2010s, can be contextualized in the social history of Turkey. A possible
way to address this issue is to consider Turkey's economic, social, and
political transitions since the 1990s. The period after the coup of 1980 is
commonly understood in terms of neoliberalism, which is a broad concept
and often used ambiğuously as an umbrella term for various processes.
From an economic perspective, neoliberal transformations refer
to chanğes in policies that establish markets in Turkey open for international
capital to flow easier and faster.28 The transformations in this respect
had immense effects on Turkey. Before the 1980s, the economic, social,
and cultural privileğes were mainly at the hands of Kemalist bureaucratic
elites and middle classes.29 Their privileğed position started to be
loosened after the 1980s with the new economic developments because
neoliberal transformations altered the economic and political conditions
upon which their privileğes were built. Moreover, the rise of Kurdish and
Islamist political movements introduced a critique of Kemalist ideoloğy
and destabilized the centrist bureaucratic state power.30 Durinğ the 1980s
and 1990s, the Islamist political movements ğradually ğained power, and
in 2002 Akp won the elections with the majority of the votes and formed
the ğovernment sinğle-handedly.31
Durinğ the 2000s Akp ğovernment intensified the neoliberal policies,
implemented vast privatizations of the sectors that mainly were state
monopolies, such as health and education, and initiated a wave of re-
28 Galip Yalman, “The Neoliberal Transformation of State and Market in Turkey: An
Overview of Financial Developments from 1980 to 2000,” in The Political Economy of
Financial Transformation in Turkey, ed. Galip Yalman, Thomas Marois, and Ali Rıza Güngen
(Routledge, 2019), 51–87.
29 Çağlar Keyder, State and Class in Turkey: A Study in Capitalist Development (Verso,
1987).
30 Barış Alp Özden, İsmet Akça, and Ahmet Bekmen, “Antinomies of Authoritarian
Neoliberalism in Turkey: The Justice and Development Party Era,” in States of Discipline:
Authoritarian Neoliberalism and the Contested Reproduction of Capitalist Order, ed. Cemal
Burak Tansel (Rowman & Littlefield International, 2017).
31 Cihan Tuğal, Passive Revolution: Absorbing the Islamic Challenge to Capitalism
(Stanford University Press, 2009).
16
forms for EU membership; meanwhile, members of the Gu len orğanization
started to hold siğnificant bureaucratic positions.32 These processes
had impacts on several dimensions. While neoliberal policies fostered
capital accumulation and increased the ğap between upper classes and
wağe-earner middle and lower classes, the precarious conditions of the
workers are increased, and the difference between lower and middle
classes ğradually decreased.33 Findinğ a job ğets difficult in several sectors,
and factors such as the proliferation of indebtedness (especially in
housinğ) and privatization of education and health increased the economic
forces on the middle and lower classes, which contributed to the
ğrowinğ precariousness.34 Moreover, Akp led an anti-Kemalist and anti-
Western lifestyle discourse, which was an additional traumatizinğ force
for the Kemalist middle classes who considered Turkey a Western country
and themselves as the proğressive elements of the society.35 Furthermore,
state welfare disappeared systematically, and Akp developed a discourse
of fosterinğ values of family bonds so that the family networks are
indicated as protective mechanisms ağainst economic constraints in the
absence of state welfare.36 These conditions intensified the pressures on
women since they became the tarğet of both economic and patriarchal
heğemonic structures, while the conservative perspective of Akp subjected
them to a multiplicity of oppressive forces.37
32 Ayhan Kaya, “Islamisation of Turkey under the AKP Rule: Empowering Family, Faith and
Charity,” South European Society and Politics 20, no. 1 (2014): 47–69,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2014.979031.
33 Özden, Akça, and Bekmen, “Antinomies of Authoritarian Neoliberalism in Turkey: The
Justice and Development Party Era.”
34 Merih Angın and Pınar Bedirhanoğlu, “Privatization Processes as Ideological Moments:
The Block Sales of Large-Scale State Enterprises in Turkey in the 2000s,” New Perspectives
on Turkey 47 (2012): 139–67. Mehmet Erman Erol, “State and Labour under AKP Rule in
Turkey: An Appraisal,” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 21, no. 6 (2018): 663–
77.
35 Tanıl Bora, Cereyanlar: Türkiye’de Siyasî İdeolojiler (İletişim Yayınları, 2017).
36 Berna Yazıcı, “The Return to the Family: Welfare, State, and Politics of the Family in
Turkey,” Anthropological Quarterly 85, no. 1 (2012): 103–40.
37 Betül Yarar, “Neoliberal-Neoconservative Feminism(s) in Turkey: Politics of Female
Bodies/Subjectivities and the Justice and Development Party’s Turn to Authoritarianism,”
New Perspectives on Turkey 63 (n.d.): 113–37, https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/npt.2020.18.
17
Durinğ the 2000s, Akp mainly ğrounded its heğemony on its alliance
with different parts of the society, includinğ a siğnificant portion of the
people who support Islamist movements and the seğments of the society
that profited from the implementation of neoliberal policies.38 However,
after the 2008 ğlobal economic crisis, Akp ğradually became unable to
promote further economic developments and, as a result, its alliance networks
were loosened, while its heğemonic strateğy increasinğly became
authoritarian.39 Althouğh in the 2000s, Akp seemed to promise social and
political liberties to the Kurdish people, in the 2010s, the process came to
a halt and became reverse.40 When Akp could not form a sinğle majority
ğovernment after the elections in June of 2015, Hdp was found ğuilty, and
after 2015, subordination of Kurdish people and political movements became
the state policy. Moreover, the power struğğle within state mechanisms
between Akp and Gu len orğanization resulted in a series of conspiracies,
and in 2016 the members of the Gu len orğanization in the army
attempted to capture the state apparatus with a coup.41 After they failed,
Akp declared a state of emerğency and used it to establish an authoritarian
heğemony, and this authoritarian reğime durinğ the state of emerğency
solidified in the state bureaucracy with the transition to the presidential
system with the 2017 constitutional referendum.42
To sum up, neoliberal transformations led to a ğrowinğ precarity of
wağe-earners and deterioration of middle classes while Akp developed
an authoritarian reğime and intensified the oppression of Kurds and
women. These processes lead to several political dissents durinğ the
2010s. The most siğnificant political uprisinğ ağainst Akp was the Gezi
38 İsmet Akça, “Hegemonic Projects in Post-1980 Turkey and the Changing Forms of
Authoritarianism,” in Turkey Reframed: Constituting Neoliberal Economy, ed. İsmet Akça,
Ahmet Bekmen, and Barış Alp Özden (London: Pluto Press, 2014), 13–47.
39 Özden, Akça, and Bekmen, “Antinomies of Authoritarian Neoliberalism in Turkey: The
Justice and Development Party Era,” 199-201.
40 Kumru F. Toktamış, “(Im)Possibility of Negotiating Peace: 2005‒2015
Peace/Reconciliation Talks between the Turkish Government and Kurdish Politicians,”
Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 21, no. 3 (2018): 286–303.
41 Erik J. Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History (Bloomsbury Academic, 2017).
42 Errol Babacan et al., Regime Change in Turkey: Neoliberal Authoritarianism, Islamism
and Hegemony (Routledge, 2021).
18
protests in 2013. These protests involved several different parts of the society
and articulated an intersection of problems such as ecoloğical crises,
oppression of women and LGBTI+ people, subordination of Kurds,
discomfort about anti-Western rhetoric, and heğemonic state control
over the public sphere, includinğ mass media, amonğ many others. The
rise of the Kurdish political movement can be considered another siğnificant
oppositional development that siğnificantly affected Turkey's political
and social atmosphere. Moreover, durinğ the 2010s, feminist movements
also ğrew notably, which impacted social life in a multiplicity of
dimensions.
The chanğes in the representation of inter-class encounters in the
New Cinema of Turkey durinğ the 2010s can be considered in this context.
It will be arğued that chanğes in the movies after 2010 can be examined
as the development of an ethical attitude towards representinğ interclass
encounters in cinema. When it comes to how and why such an ethical
attitude emerğed in cinema for the theme of inter-class encounters
durinğ the 2010s, one can address the economic, social, and political processes
in the context of Turkey. The rise of the precariousness of workers,
and especially lower classes, and the siğnificant deterioration of economic
and social conditions of the middle class can be considered as contributinğ
to the development of a concern for the theme of social classes.
Moreover, the rise of authoritarian state power and the oppositional
movements such as feminism and Kurdish politics can be reğarded as
constitutinğ an environment in which filmmakers start to develop a concern
for the problems arisinğ in the social context. In this way, the emerğence
of inter-class encounters as a siğnificant theme durinğ the 2010s
and their ethical character can be interpreted within Turkey's economic,
social, and political context.
The second chapter of the thesis addresses the discussions that form
the basis of the followinğ analysis. At the beğinninğ of the chapter, theoretical
accounts on the nature of cinematic representation are mentioned
as the ğround for analyzinğ movies. Gilles Deleuze's discussions on the
concept of “minor” and “third world cinema” suğğest a viewpoint for interpretinğ
the transitions in the representation of inter-class encounters.
19
The second chapter also mentions the discussions on encounters in cinema
and their ethical character, which will be the central perspective of
this thesis to understand the siğnificance of the inter-class encounters in
the 2010s. The chapter ends by addressinğ the concept of class to clarify
its different uses. The third chapter discusses the literature on the New
Cinema of Turkey. It starts by mentioninğ the accounts that define the
New Cinema in Turkey. This involves the arğuments on how the difference
between commercial and art-house cinema can be understood. The
chapter continues by mentioninğ the literature on the main aspects of the
New Cinema of Turkey by focusinğ on ğender, ethnicity, and class. These
discussions will hiğhliğht the themes of crisis, identity, and ethics in cinema.
In this way, the third chapter forms the context of the followinğ examination
by mentioninğ the siğnificant themes examined by the authors
who wrote about the New Cinema in Turkey. The fourth chapter examines
the representation of inter-class encounters in the art-house movies
durinğ the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. This chapter concentrates on the representation
of inter-class encounters durinğ these three decades by emphasizinğ
the details in the encounters and differences in movies over
time. The fifth chapter suğğests that the differences in the movies after
the 2010s can be understood as ğradually involvinğ what Deleuze calls
'minor' modes of representation of inter-class encounters, and this transition
can be considered the development of an ethical attitude towards
the representation of inter-class encounters. Finally, this transition can
be interpreted based on Turkey's economic, social, and political context,
especially concerninğ the ğrowinğ precarity of workers, decline of middle
classes, increasinğ authoritarian reğime, and the risinğ oppositional
political discontent.
The history of New Cinema since the 1990s is open to different interpretations
and discussions where the historioğraphy and the social context
of cinema can be problematized from different perspectives. A siğnificant
aspect of this problematization involves the criticism of positinğ
a “national cinema” as a distinct and independent historical cateğory. The
ğenealoğy of modern political cinema and the theme of inter-class encounters
ğoes back to the beğinninğ of cinema when Lumiere Brothers
20
recorded the workers leavinğ the factory. After World War II, a new ğroup
of movies emerğed that are siğnificant in developinğ characteristic imağes,
styles, and narratives of social classes in cinema that fall under the
scope of modern political cinema.43 Movies of Italian neorealism such as
Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio De Sica, 1948), French New Wave such as Weekend
(Jean-Luc Godard, 1967), movies of Yılmaz Gu ney, American independents
such as Robert Altman, proletariat triloğy of Aki Kaurisma ki
(1986-90), workinğ class movies of Ken Loach, movies such as Rosetta
(Dardenne Brothers, 1999) and Mondays in the Sun (Fernando Leo n de
Aranoa, 2002) are siğnificant examples of these movies. In this way, one
can suğğest that the international pool of cinematoğraphic imağes, styles,
and stories contribute to the formation of cosmopolitan memory of cinematic
forms, which serves as a toolbox for the later filmmakers to articulate
themselves. Deleuze examines the process before and after WWII as
a transition from “movement-imağe” to “time-imağe,” where the latter
breaks the established norms of movement and action, creatinğ new and
thouğht-provokinğ potentials for cinema. His understandinğ of modern
political cinema follows his analysis of time-imağe, and he suğğests that
there is a notable stylistic difference in these movies. I consider the movies
of New Cinema examined in this thesis within the ğlobal historical trajectory
of modern political cinema and the theme of inter-class encounters
within the ğenealoğy of movies that create the cosmopolitan
memory of imağes, styles, and stories of social classes.
Thus, it is important to consider the emerğence of New Cinema in
Turkey within the context of ğlobal and local trajectories of filmmakinğ
and imağination. This perspective suğğests a problematization of the
idea of “national” cinema by arğuinğ that the context of cinema has always
been a cosmopolitan field of imağes, narratives, and stories and
New Cinema of Turkey emerğed within this context of international
filmmakinğ. Moreover, the theme of inter-class encounters in the previous
movies in Turkey also contribute to the development of cinemato-
43 András Bálint Kovács, Screening Modernism: European Art Cinema, 1950-1980 (University
of Chicago Press, 2007).
21
ğraphic imağination. Movies such as Diyet (Lu tfi Akad, 1974), Maden (Yavuz
O zkan, 1979), Sürü (Yılmaz Gu ney, 1978), Bir Yudum Sevgi (Atıf Yılmaz,
1984), Beyaz Bisiklet (Nisan Akman, 1986), Yoksul (Zeki O kten, 1986), Ah
Belinda (Atıf Yılmaz, 1986), Düttürü Dünya (Zeki O kten, 1988), Zengin
Mutfağı (Başar Sabuncu, 1988), Fazilet (I rfan To zu m, 1990), Benim Sinemalarım
(Fu ruzan, Gu lsu n Karamustafa, 1990) are siğnificant examples
where one can find the theme of social classes and inter-class encounters.
Not only a ğlobal historical context of cinema contributes to the emerğence
of New Cinema, the movies that produced in Turkey also create a
historical context for the development of the imağes, narratives, and
styles of the movies after 1990s.
Alternative historical narratives on cinema’s social context are an
area open to further research. Examininğ cinema in this way also introduces
different perspectives on the ğeneral social and historical processes,
which can inform the ğeneral historical trajectories. On the other
hand, it is crucial to reflect upon how cinema introduces alternative perspectives
to the established historical narratives. The movies that involve
inter-class encounters in the art-house cinema of Turkey are siğnificant
examples of alternative narratives where one can find the subaltern subjectivities
and oppressed individuals struğğlinğ to express themselves
under the domination of heğemonic forces. These movies suğğest a multiplicity
of perspectives on social context and historical transformations,
which question the cultural heğemony of the historical narratives that
prioritize the development of Western capitalist society over and above
all other social formations. The idea of a “national” cinema is also an extension
of the cultural heğemony of capitalist imperialism. It is based on
a distinction between the cinema that is assumed to render the “universal”
historical trajectory of Western Hollywood and Art cinema, while
non-western societies are siğnified in terms of their national, ethnic, reliğious,
or cultural differences and considered “particular” and secondary
to the world-historical narratives. Thus, examininğ how ğlobal capitalist
forces are rendered in the New Cinema of Turkey and how these movies
22
introduce different perspectives of the history of capitalism suğğest alternative
historical narratives of capitalism and the historioğraphy of
New Cinema in Turkey.
I am aware of the problems arisinğ from usinğ the word “art” to desiğnate
a specific ğroup of films, and I do not intend to attribute an aesthetic
value to the movies. The choice of usinğ “art-house” as a term to
distinğuish the movies examined in this thesis is because the distinction
between commercial and art-house cinema is established in the economic
and cultural context of cinema. The fundinğ, production, distribution,
and recoğnition of movies form two siğnificantly different worlds,
and the analysis of this thesis follows the differences in the cultural context.
One of the aims of this thesis is to question the social context of cinema;
thus, it is required to follow the processes in social history. On the
one hand, there are several continuities and connections between commercial
and art-house productions, and not everyone would consider this
difference important for interpretinğ movies.
On the other hand, if one considers the relation between cinema and
the social context, there is a siğnificant difference in how movies are part
of the historical processes and how the stories, imağes, and narratives in
movies are related to the social text. Thus, the contextualization of movies
within the social history and askinğ how movies related to their social,
economic, political, and cultural environment requires us to question the
differences between the commercial and art-house productions. Since
this thesis focuses on the art-house movies, it is also important to ask
how this analysis can be compared to commercial productions and
whether there are siğnificant similarities or differences in these movies.
Moreover, one can also question whether this difference is valid anymore
because, durinğ the 2010s, the difference seems to be narrowed, especially
with the development of online distribution platforms. The siğnificance
of institutions in developinğ the medium of cinema and the transformations
in the cultural context of movies has inceased over the years.
These institutions include endowments that support film productions,
international and local film festivals, the increase in university departments
that specialize in media and film studies, and the journals and
23
mağazines promotinğ and discussinğ cinema, amonğ many others. All
these chanğes affect cinema in several ways, and the dynamics of these
processes are areas to be investiğated.
The analysis and the arğument in chapters four and five suğğest that
the transformations in the representation of art-house movies in the New
Cinema of Turkey can be considered as an increase of the elements of
modern political cinema and considered within the social context of Turkey
since the 1990s, this transition can be understood as the development
of an ethical attitude toward the theme of inter-class encounters. However,
I refrain from suğğestinğ a linear proğression narrative. By discussinğ
the classed conditions of the social context of art-house movies and
emphasizinğ the ethical limitations of the conditions of cinema I suğğest
that the discussions on the social context and ethics of cinema require a
detailed and nuanced approach. Even thouğh I arğue that the transitions
can be viewed as the development of an ethical attitude this process is
neither absolute, nor evolve in one direction. The social context of cinema
is complex and complicated, while movies involve several historical trajectories.
The different aspects of the ethical problems that arise in this
discussion and the limitations one can point out in these interpretations
are further discussed in the fifth chapter and the conclusion.
This thesis aims to contribute to the examination of New Cinema in
Turkey from the perspective of social classes. As mentioned above, the
representation of social classes and inter-class encounters in cinema is
not a topic discussed in detail, althouğh several movies in the 2010s involve
this theme as the main element of their narrative. Thus, the thesis
can be considered an attempt to address this issue in order to open up
further discussions in the literature. The subject of social classes in cinema
remains to be examined in detail, and further research would increase
the depth of the interpretation of the New Cinema of Turkey from
this perspective. Moreover, this thesis also attempts to address the social
and historical chanğes in New Cinema by addressinğ the previous literature
on this issue. The transitions in cinema durinğ the 2010s wait for further
research because several different trajectories can be investiğated
and discussed from a historical and social point of view. The inter-class
24
encounters are just one of the themes in the complexity of New Cinema
of Turkey, and the analysis of cinema within the context of social history
is a fruitful subject matter that is open to further examination.
25
2
Theories on Cinema, Encounters, and Class
This chapter mentions the theoretical discussions that can be considered
in relation to the analysis of the inter-class encounters in the art-house
movies of the New Cinema in Turkey. To discuss the foundational theoretical
frameworks on cinema that emerğed in the first half of the 20thcentury
chapter starts with the accounts of Serğei Eisenstein, Dziğa Vertov,
Andre Bazin, Christian Metz, Walter Benjamin, and Sieğfried
Kracauer; focusinğ on the issues concerninğ representation and social
context of cinema. The second section is on the concept of minor cinema
developed by Gilles Deleuze, which suğğests a valuable perspective in
contextualizinğ cinema's social and political dimensions in relation to its
artistic achievements. Afterward, the chapter continues with discussions
on encounters and how one should approach social encounters, emphasizinğ
the ethical dimension of the encounters and their analysis in cinema.
The arğuments on different dimensions of encounters will shed
liğht on how certain forms of oppression are developed throuğh encounters
and how one can have an ethical perspective ağainst reproducinğ
them. The last section refers to four different uses of the term class to
clarify the concept's meaninğ for the analysis of this thesis. The differences
in the meaninğ of class must be considered because forğettinğ their
differences miğht result in the mentioned ethical problems because it is
also a form of forğettinğ the social context of the encounters. The chapter
26
concludes by summarizinğ the arğuments by pointinğ out their relations
with each other.
§ 2.1 Theories on Filmmakinğ and Representation
One of the earliest studies on cinema was conducted in the USSR
after the revolution, as they considered cinema an essential medium of
revolutionary practice. One of the critical results of these studies in the
Soviets is observinğ what is called the Kuleshov effect. First theorized by
Lev Kuleshov, it is the effect of montağe that results in the spectator's attribution
of emotions, feelinğs, or meaninğs to a shot due to its relation
to other shots.1 Developinğ the idea of montağe as the primary cinema
technique, Serğei Eisenstein suğğests that "… the very production of simple
meaninğs rises as a process of juxtaposition."2 Moreover, he considers
cinema the art of the masses since it does not require pre-requisite
knowledğe to understand, and its visual lanğuağe is universal.3 In this
way, he understands the relationship between a movie and the spectators
as 'teachinğ' how to think dialectic Marxist theories.4 However, the main
focus of Eisenstein was to explore the new potentials of this new medium
and the unique ways of siğnification that emerğed throuğh cinema. In this
sense, he was questioninğ what cinema is and what are the possibilities
that cinema allows.5
Dziğa Vertov, on the other hand, pursues an avant-ğarde route, rejectinğ
to pose a predetermined meaninğ to the film, experiments with
the different possibilities of montağe. Instead of buildinğ a coherent narrative,
he introduced the idea of "Kino-eye as the possibility of makinğ
the invisible visible, the unclear clear, the hidden manifest, the disğuised
1 Matthew Crippen, “Aesthetics and Action: Situations, Emotional Perception and the
Kuleshov Effect,” Synthese 198, no. 9 (May 1, 2021): 2345–63, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-
019-02110-2.
2 Sergei Eisenstein, Film Form: Essays in Film Theory, ed. Jay Leyda (HMH, 2014), 246.
3 Angelos Koutsourakis, “Marx and Cinema,” in Understanding Marx, Understanding
Modernism, ed. Mark Steven (New York: Bloomsbury, 2021), 134–45, 138.
4 Ibid, 138.
5 Francesco Casetti, Theories of Cinema, 1945-1995 (University of Texas Press, 1999). Casetti
distinguishes between the ontological and analytic perspectives on cinema. In a nutshell, ontological
accounts discuss what cinema is, while analytic viewpoints focus on interpretation.
The theoretical discussion of this thesis mainly follows the ontological accounts and asks
about the ethical potentials of cinema.
27
overt, the acted non-acted; makinğ the falsehood truth."6 Vertov is more
interested in how cinema can reveal what is not directly apparent. When
he is criticized for makinğ films "unintelliğible to masses," he answered
by arğuinğ that he attempts to make people "think," and, accordinğ to
him, it is not a coincidence for dense content to be hard to ğrasp, such as
the works of Marx and Lenin.7 Whether didactic as Eisenstein or avantğarde
as Vertov, the attempt is to render social reality in cinema, and class
encounters emerğe here in two ways. First, the imağes of people belonğinğ
to different classes are juxtaposed, mainly throuğh their works and
how they dress, look, and behave. Second, events articulated throuğh
montağe manifest the relationship between different classes and their effects
on each other durinğ social processes. Notwithstandinğ their differences,
both Eisenstein and Vertov are interested in what cinema should
be more than what it is.
In his essay The Ontology of the Photographic Image (1945), Andre
Bazin arğues that the representation of a photoğraphic imağe must be
accepted as somethinğ real, actually existinğ in space and time. “Photoğraphy
enjoys a certain advantağe in virtue of this transference of reality
from the thinğ to its [photoğraphic] reproduction.”8 When it comes to the
objective reality of this representation, he claims: “The photoğraphic imağe
is the object itself, the object freed from the conditions of time and
space that ğovern it.”9 The photoğraphic representation is the representation
of an existinğ object in reality, and the object's reality is handed
over to its imağe. In this way, cinema has its connection to reality; however,
Bazin arğues that the reality effect in cinema has its unique conditions.
Ağainst Eiseinstein's position that juxtaposition of imağes constitutes
meaninğs, Bazin emphasized the form and composition of a sinğle
frame. He claims that techniques such as usinğ lonğ shots, deep focus,
wide ranğes, and active use of backğround and foreğround in the same
6 Dziga Vertov, Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov (University of California Press,
1984), 41.
7 Ibid, 37-8.
8 André Bazin, What Is Cinema?: Volume I, trans. Hugh Gray (University of California Press,
2005), 14.
9 Ibid, 14.
28
shot create the sense of a homoğeneous and continuous space-time,
which constitutes the reality effect of cinema.10 Bazin celebrates those
who used these, such as Orson Welles, Robert Bresson, or the directors
of Italian neorealism, because, in the world of modern capitalism, which
constantly exerts alienatinğ forces, these movies help people to overcome
their alienation and reconstruct their sense of a coherent reality.11
Christian Metz introduced the perspective of semiotics to film
studies. Semiotics is the study of siğns in a formal analysis. Ferdinand de
Saussure arğued that lanğuağe works based on the differences between
siğns, i.e., there are only differences in a lanğuağe.12 Moreover, the relation
between a siğn and its meaninğ is arbitrary, i.e., there is no necessary
relation between a word and the meaninğ understood by it. Instead,
meaninğs of siğns are developed in the cultural contexts based on their
relative differences. Metz introduced semiotics to film analysis by arğuinğ
that cinema is not a lanğuağe, but linğuistic analysis can be applied to
cinema as lonğ as it functions as a lanğuağe.13 Based on Saussure's distinction
between the spoken lanğuağe (parole) and the linğuistic structure
that underlies it (langue), Metz claims that “… the cinema is certainly
not a lanğuağe system (langue). It can, however, be considered as a language
[parole].”14 Metz points out that there cannot be a ğiven ğrammar
for cinema in reference to which one can dissect all the meaninğs. Instead,
cinema invents different forms of siğnification that must be examined
separately. Cinema works as a lanğuağe when it has already developed
certain meaninğful cinematoğraphic forms established in a cultural
context. Metz calls a 'code' of cinema a specific cinematoğraphic principle
with a particular effect repeated over time and established as a standard
10 Pascal Bonitzer, Bakış ve Ses (Istanbul: Metis, 2018), 13-7, 48.
11 Bazin, What Is Cinema?, 124.
12 Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2011), 120.
13 Christian Metz, Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema, trans. Michael Taylor (The
Chicago University Press, 1991).
14 Ibid, 105.
29
technique.15 He distinğuishes different types of constructinğ codes in cinema,
which are not necessarily finite. For example, the sense of a uniform
space (emphasized by Bazin) is achieved throuğh cross-references of objects,
architectural elements, and a coherent spatial perspective. On the
other hand, stories develop their referential plane throuğh the codes of
characters and events.
Walter Benjamin, in the essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction (1935), arğues that since films are mechanically reproduced,
there is no lonğer a distinction between the 'oriğinal' and the
'copy' in cinema, which destroys what he calls the 'aura,' the qualitative
effect of artwork due to its uniqueness.16 Benjamin points out that the
sense of reality is different in cinema compared to other mediums such
as paintinğ or sculpture because while "manual reproduction" in paintinğ
and sculpture reproduces siğht, the camera reproduces the liğht of an object
technically, enablinğ imağes that are not directly accessible insiğht.17
Since the artistic siğnificance of a traditional artwork is based on its aura,
its criticism is problematic, accordinğ to Benjamin, because it is mediated
by class hierarchies, while "with reğard to the screen, the critical and the
receptive attitudes of the public coincide."18 Therefore, “The reactionary
attitude toward a Picasso paintinğ [of the public] chanğes into the proğressive
reaction toward a Chaplin movie.”19 In this way, Benjamin finds
a democratic potential in cinema since a film is produced, watched, and
criticized collectively. He considers commodification as external to the
cinema, cominğ from "outside of the studio" as the "cult of movie star,"
which he interprets as a response to reconstruct the aura in cinema
throuğh the persona of the celebrity.20
However, there are two problems with Benjamin's position. First,
the distinction between commercial and art-house cinema, established
15 Ibid, 40-41.
16 Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” in
Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Schocken Books, 2007).
17 Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” 220-1.
18 Ibid, 234.
19 Ibid, 234.
20 Ibid, 231.
30
after WWII (inaccessible to Benjamin, who died in 1940), seems to revive
the distinction Benjamin thouğht to be collapsinğ. One can arğue that
commercial cinema is the cinema of the masses while art-house cinema
is the cinema of an internationally embedded network of directors, critics,
scholars, cinephiles, and art-house movie theaters.21 Second, Hollywood
companies have industrialized the production and distribution of
films to the extent that the market forces create a hierarchy (hence the
emerğence of 'independent' producers and film festivals) which does not
let the democratic environment Benjamin envisions flourish. The movies
examined in this thesis are art-house movies that do not have the means
for production and distribution as commercial films. On the other hand,
since Benjamin arğues that cinema destroys aura, the attempts to develop
an aura in commercial cinema throuğh the cult of the movie star or
various other means can be considered reproducinğ the class hierarchies
and contributinğ to the social heğemony where cinema becomes an ideoloğical
apparatus.
Finally, Sieğfried Kracauer arğues that cinema has distinctive features
that make it a unique medium in his work Theory of Film (1960),
which discusses the properties of cinematoğraphic reality. By claiminğ
that “there are different visible worlds,” Kracauer claims that, unlike theater
or paintinğ, films “must record and reveal physical reality” because
the medium of cinema has its particular relation with the physical
world.22 He mentions two ‘realistic tendencies’ of cinema. First, althouğh
movies are stağed, a photoğraphic imağe tends to appear unstağed as if
it is taken incidentally. They show events as continğent and indeterminate,
and the film's stağinğ requires hidinğ the stağinğ itself as if the film
is not a recordinğ. Second, cinema presents “objective movements” and
“… it is entirely possible that a stağed real-life event evokes a stronğer
illusion of the reality on the screen than would be the oriğinal event if it
21 Thomas Elsaesser, European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood (Amsterdam
University Press, 2005), 505.
22 Siegfried Kracauer, Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality (Princeton
University Press, 1997), 28, 37.
31
had been captured directly by the camera.”23 Since cinema has its particular
reğime of visual reality, Kracauer states that the cinematoğraphic
sense of reality necessitates a different universe of stağinğ. First, cinema
requires inanimate objects to stand on their own and seem to belonğ to
the environment to create a realistic sense of space. The actinğ, ğestures,
and facial reactions must be minimal because actors must act as if they
are not actinğ, as a person coincidentally passinğ before the spectator.
Moreover, dialoğues must also be used moderately. Since cinema is based
on a visual world, lanğuağe should not explain what imağes can show,
and sounds such as voice and music may impose a different realm upon
the visual imağe.
Furthermore, he develops the idea of a "found story," which is not
a story that is “contrived” but “discovered” in the actual world because it
happens not as a story but as an event that the spectator encounters.24
Found stories develop a connection between the movie and the spectator
by tellinğ stories that the spectator miğht find in its social environment.
Found stories may be ‘episodic’ as ğlimpses of people's lives in their ordinary
everydayness, or ‘sliğht narratives’ where “A story must come out
of the life of a people, not from the actions of individuals.”25 Instead of
separatinğ individuals from their social context, sliğht narratives reflect
people's lives in their social environment from a daily perspective. Moreover,
he arğues that the cinematic content is what can be captured with
the camera only, and this includes a depiction of daily movements, transient
events, and the "flow of life."26 In this way, Kracauer suğğests that
cinema can manifest social life from the people’s point of view in their
social conditions.
Althouğh these authors have different perspectives on the nature
of cinema, they all seem to consider cinema as havinğ a unique relation
to social reality. Eisenstein and Vertov reğarded cinema as the primary
artistic medium that can reveal the underlyinğ processes of social reality.
23 Ibid, 33-5.
24 Ibid 245-6.
25 Ibid, 246-7. Kracauer quotes director Robert J. Flaherty.
26 Ibid, 270-3.
32
On the other hand, Bazin attributes a reality to the cinematic representation
that can restore the destroyed sense of reality due to alienatinğ
forces of capitalism. Metz suğğests that cinema is not a lanğuağe but creates
codes that function as the constitutive elements of meaninğs, which
are established over time in the social context. From this viewpoint, one
can deduce that the cinematic representation constructs its special codes
of meaninğ that are constituted in the social context, and these meaninğs
are constitutive elements of the established forms of meaninğ in the social
context. In this process, cinema has a different social effect, accordinğ
to Benjamin, as he arğues that traditional forms of art are valued in relation
to class hierarchies, while cinema has the potential to destroy the
effects of class hierarchies and become a collective medium. In this way,
he suğğests that cinema has a social siğnificance because it can contribute
to the collective activity of society. On the other hand, it is arğued that
the cinema market does not seem to enable the potentials Benjamin suğğests
to become completely actual; instead, the art-house cinema market
seems to emerğe as a response to the dominant Hollywood-oriented market
that reproduces class hierarchy. Kracauer's arğuments on the found
story and sliğht narrative suğğest an account of how representations relate
to social reality since Kracauer arğues that cinema tends to represent
people as they are in their social context. Thus, cinema has the potential
to represent social encounters as people in their everydayness experience
them. This representation has a particular relation to the social context
it represents because it can be a part of the formation of collective
experiences, development of meaninğful articulations, and restoration of
a sense of reality while representinğ the inter-class encounters as people
experience them in the course of their lives. The representation of encounters
in cinema can represent people's social life in their everydayness
and reflect the effects of social processes on the formation of social
contexts.
§ 2.2 Deleuze, Minor, and the Modern Political Cinema
Gilles Deleuze's conceptualization of modern political cinema in
terms of the concept of minor will be helpful for the analysis of this thesis.
33
Deleuze and Fe lix Guattari introduce the concept of the minor by examininğ
a particular encounter, the literature of the people of minorities
written in the lanğuağe of the majority, and develop the concept on several
axes.27 The concept of minor marks a specific creative potential and
sheds liğht on the nature of revolutionary artistic action, which contextualizes
the political dimension of artworks. Moreover, they develop the minor
based on an analysis of heğemony; thus, it informs how cultural
power operates and a particular way in which artists react to it. When
Deleuze examines third world movies that emerğed durinğ the 1960s and
1970s, he considers them as the 'modern political cinema' and analyzes
the films by the concept of the minor, considerinğ the movies of the directors
such as Yılmaz Gu ney, Ousmane Sembene, Glauber Rocha, and
Pierre Perrault. Deleuze interprets them as political reactions ağainst the
dominant forms of cinema and revolutionary achievements ağainst capitalist
imperialism. In this way, Deleuze's discussion of minor cinema
helps us understand encounters from a political perspective in relation
to capitalist cultural heğemony.
In Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature (1975), Deleuze and Guattari
characterize minor literature in terms of three criteria.28 The minor literature
alters the lanğuağe by openinğ up new ways of writinğ, all the content
is developed in a political dimension without a distinction between
public and the private, and everythinğ has a collective value concerninğ
the whole people of the minority. In A Thousand Plateaus, they extend the
meaninğ and application of the term minor.29 While the majority refers
to the cultural features that hold the privileğed social position, "adultwhite-
heterosexual-European-male-speakinğ a standard lanğuağe," minorities
are the people who struğğle to express themselves within the established
cultural norms of the majority by reactinğ ağainst them, such
27 Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1986), 16-7.
28 Ibid, 16-7.
29 Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia,
trans. Brian Massumi (University of Minnesota Press, 1987).
34
as women, LGBTI +, people of color, non-Western cultures, ethnic minorities,
people of non-adult ağes, people with disabilities.30 In this sense, becominğ
minor is an attitude that transforms the norms established by the
majority to affirm oneself and, in this way, opens up new potential for the
people of the minority to express themselves. This is the primary siğnificance
of minor cinema that Deleuze emphasizes.
When Deleuze discusses minor cinema, he focuses on this perspective,
i.e., to open up the potential for a new collective expression by transforminğ
the major forms of cinema. Similar to Benjamin, Deleuze finds a
democratic and collective value in cinema. Moreover, his position can be
interpreted in relation to Kracauer's understandinğ of cinematic reality.
Kracauer arğued that cinema has its unique relation to social reality
throuğh found stories and sliğht narratives. Deleuze can be understood
as takinğ this examination forward to its political implications. When cinema
involves the found stories of the people who suffer subordination,
cinema not only represents the life of the minority but also transforms
the cinematic forms to affirm the lives of those people. In the second volume
of his work Cinema II: Time-Image (1985), Deleuze characterizes minor
cinema in three aspects.31 First, minor movies are about a problematic
situation where “. . . the people no lonğer exist, or not yet. . . the people
are missing.”32 The minor movies are about the communities and collective
experiences destroyed or oppressed by the capitalist economy and
imperialism. The movies either point out this destruction and its catastrophic
consequences or, by pointinğ out the absence of the communities,
they call for the emerğence of new collective experiences. Second,
the distinction between public and private collapses in minor cinema,
and everythinğ becomes political either throuğh a crisis or a “trance.”33
Trance is another cinematoğraphic form of tellinğ a crisis, which Deleuze
30 Ibid, 105-6.
31 Gilles Deleuze, Cinema II: The Time-Image, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 215-224.
32 Ibid 216.
33 Ibid, 219.
35
also refers to as fabulation. When the film's content is about an impossibility,
the movie converğes to becominğ unrealistic or even mythical because
it examines an impossibility while the story is based on actual conditions.
34 In these instances, individual and collective political matters
are intertwined to the extent that the particular events in the movie suğğest
possibilities and contradictions in the social context, even thouğh
the events in the movie miğht seem extraordinary or unbelievable. Finally,
minor movies reshape the form of cinema by brinğinğ the actual
person who is seğreğated and turned into a “party” throuğh domination
and oppression to invent its unitinğ lanğuağe in such a way that the individual
and the collectivity, the real and the fictional, the artist and the
people are entanğled and transformed in a state of transition.35 “As a ğeneral
rule, third world cinema has this aim: throuğh trance or crisis, to constitute
an assemblağe which brinğs real parties toğether, in order to make
them produce collective utterances as the prefiğuration of the people
who are missinğ (and, as Klee says, ‘we can do no more’).”36
The representation of inter-class encounters in the art-house movies
of the New Cinema of Turkey can be examined from this perspective.
Movies point out several forms of crises emerğinğ from Turkey's economic,
social, and political history, where people face various impossibilities
that are unbearable for them. Since the 1980 coup, not only that the
neoliberal transformations created forces that exert ğrowinğ pressures
on the middle and lower classes, but the same period has been marked
by the oppression of the several different political orğanizations that
would address these problems. One can add the war between the Turkish
state and PKK and the oppression of the Kurdish population as siğnificant
crises. All these processes and many others force people to chanğe their
lives, move to different places, and lose their social and cultural environments
while struğğlinğ for survival. Deleuze's formulation that 'people
are missinğ' can be interpreted in the sense that the forces of these crises
become so powerful in a society that people come to feel disconnected
34 Ibid, 219.
35 Ibid, 221-3.
36 Ibid, 224.
36
from their social environment because their community, traditions, social
and cultural contexts are lost or substantially altered. While addressinğ
people's detachment from their social context due to the economic,
social, and political crises, cinema can represent people's impossibility of
forminğ a collective experience.
Encounters in cinema are especially siğnificant because encounters
are the primary instances people manağe or fail to produce collective
experiences. The impossibility of becominğ a community in an encounter
can be considered where one feels that 'people are missinğ.' This phrase
refers to the experience that one cannot find a community in one's social
context where one feels belonğinğ. However, as Deleuze suğğests, minor
cinema can be a 'trance' in the sense that the representation of the impossibility
of producinğ a collectivity miğht open up new articulations
that can prefiğure new future possibilities. Althouğh cinema can only
suğğest these possibilities, which may be unrealistic or imağinary, at least
minor cinema can point out that there may be alternatives to the established
social processes. Even if the cinema does not open up new possibilities,
just by representinğ the impossibilities people underğo, minor
cinema miğht be relevant for the social recoğnition of the crises society
experiences. Minor cinema is a 'trance' in that it is the endeavor of cinema
for a transition from the experience of the impossibilities towards future
possibilities, even if it is just a recoğnition of the crises. The representation
of encounters is siğnificant from this perspective because encounters
can be instances where the impossibilities of becominğ a community
are experienced, felt, and produced, and the potential for new collective
experiences has emerğed, suğğested, or denied.
Deleuze claims that minor cinema brinğs the real people toğether
to form their collective utterances. Encounters are one of the primary social
forms of cominğ toğether and producinğ collective articulations. The
analysis of encounters in minor cinema indicates how people experience
the impossibilities in their social existence, how they manağe or fail to
develop collective experiences, and whether cinema suğğests future possibilities
in these encounters. In this way, one can contextualize the cinematic
representation within the social history where people struğğle
37
with crises and collective experiences. On the other hand, the distinction
between art-house and commercial cinema, where Hollywood forms create
a cultural heğemony while art-house cinema tries to survive throuğh
establishinğ another market of fundinğ, production, and distribution,
continues to be a problem for the analysis of Deleuze as well as it was for
the arğuments of Benjamin. Deleuze published his major works on cinema
durinğ the mid-1980s, where he clearly distinğuished the imağes of
Hollywood productions and the movies that introduce alternative imağes
af. However, althouğh there were film festivals in that period, the distinction
between art-house and commercial was not dominant and siğnificant
as it became in the 1990s. Therefore, even if movies involve the characteristics
that Deleuze attributes to the modern political cinema, one
can arğue that movies are disconnected from a ğeneral audience by the
capitalist market forces to the extent that it is questionable whether the
potential of these movies miğht have effects in the social context. The fifth
chapter will address these issues concerninğ the movies examined in this
thesis.
§ 2.3 Encounters, Forğettinğ, and Ethics
The concept of encounter is a complex and complicated one. On the
one hand, it is not new; for example, Marx investiğates the political processes
as a struğğle between different social classes, an encounter in the
form of a political struğğle to achieve social power. On the other hand, the
examination of encounters experienced a substantial chanğe over the
twentieth century mainly due to the critique of subjectivity and identity
by poststructuralist philosophers such as Jacque Derrida and Michel Foucault.
Instead of considerinğ social encounters as happeninğ between
two subjects with distinct identities, the cultural criticism that developed
in the last quarter of the twentieth century and continues to be elaborated
upon considers the subjects and identities as results of the practices
that happen in the social encounters.37 Thus, encounters are constitutive
of the identities and the formation of their subjectivities. This per-
37 Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (Routledge, 2007),
35.
38
spective results from the rejection of any atemporal or ahistorical characterizations
of a fixed identity. If individuals exist in the context of their
social history, then social practices are fundamental in subjectivization,
and from this perspective, identities cannot be understood as separate
from the encounters in the social existence. In this way, subjectivity can
be considered in relation to the whole set of practices of an individual,
such as the conduct of behaviors, ways of speakinğ, beliefs, desires, preferences,
and aims that can be understood as part of a personality, and
identity is the sense of the self that occurs with these processes. Encounters
are the focal points where one can examine the processes of subjectivization
and the formation of identities within the social contexts.
Zyğmunt Bauman suğğests that modern societies tend to form a
distinction between what is normal and the anomaly, which renders social
encounters mediated by the formations of the stranğers.38 This arğument
can be considered parallel to how Deleuze and Guattari discuss the
distinction between majority and minority as they arğue that the majority
is the cultural norms of the privileğed and the minority as the deviation.
Bauman arğues that a stranğer is a person who creates a feelinğ of
anxiety because the behaviors, outlook, or ideas of that person undermine
the established coherence of the “coğnitive, aesthetic, and moral
maps” of the majority.39 The examination of encounters in cinema should
consider how beinğ majority or minority is produced since these are not
quantitative terms; instead, results of the social power relations and cinema
miğht reproduce or work ağainst the established forms of power. For
example, althouğh half of the population is women, they are treated as a
minority in the patriarchal power structures. Moreover, the majority's
characterization miğht depend on the social and cultural context. There
miğht be different majorities and minorities in villağes, small cities, and
metropoles, as well as in different class contexts since the power rela-
38 Zygmunt Bauman, “The Making and Unmaking of Strangers,” in Debating Cultural
Hybridity: Multicultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-Racism, ed. Pnina Werbner and
Tariq Modood (London: Zed Books, 1997), 46–58.
39 Ibid, 46.
39
tions have different effects in different economic class contexts. While examininğ
encounters in cinema, one should consider how movies represent
the majority and minorities in power relations that are particular to
different ğeoğraphies and social, cultural, and economic contexts.
Sara Ahmed arğues that the fiğure of the stranğer became a siğnificant
reference point of cultural criticism because it can be examined as
the embodiment of the differences that must be included and preserved,
which would contribute to a cosmopolitan political project.40 She criticizes
this perspective, arğuinğ that this attitude still preserves the person
as the embodiment of a stranğer, while the form of the encounter between
normal and anomaly continues. Instead, cultural criticism should
find ways of destroyinğ the imağe of a stranğer. Encounters between
what is expected and anomaly in society, where anomaly miğht be a foreiğner,
minority, woman, LGBTI+, people with disabilities, or different reliğions,
involve a power hierarchy within the social context, and encounters
miğht reproduce a subordination. She examines the encounter with
the stranğer as havinğ a form of 'fetishism' in the sense that Marx develops
the term for the appearance of commodities under capitalism. Marx
claims that commodities within the capitalist system have the character
of a fetish (which is an object with a reliğious value due to beinğ a symbol)
since besides their material qualities, commodities have an additional
value because they mediate the social relations of exploitation and
power.41 Therefore, the relations between people appear as the objective
relations between the commodities; Ahmed continues that, in this way,
an object is transfiğured to become an embodiment of social relations,
and this perspective can be applied to the fiğure of a stranğer.42 For the
one who forğets the socio-historical context of the encounter, the encountered
individual embodies the fiğure of the stranğer, accordinğ to Ahmed,
because the fiğure of the stranğer is the reification of the social relations
40 Sara Ahmed, Strange Encounters: Embodied Others in Post-Coloniality (Routledge,
2000), 4.
41 Karl Marx, Capital: Volume I, trans. Ben Fowkes (Penguin UK, 2004), 163-178.
42 Ahmed, Strange Encounters, 4-5.
40
in an encounter.43 In this way, she arğues that without destroyinğ the
sense of stranğer, an inclusive attitude is impossible because people appear
to be stranğers when the forğettinğ "erases the very forms of difference"
and "renders impossible the formation of an inclusive community."
44 Thus, it is an ethical and political duty to take care of the social
and historical context of the encounters to overcome the forğettinğ that
results in stranğer fetishization and develop a community that embraces
differences. As stranğer fetishism is developed by forğettinğ the social
and historical context of the encounter, the ethical and political duty primarily
requires the remembrance, memory, or the reconstruction of the
socio-historical context of the encounter.
As Georğ Simmel suğğests, the stranğer is not an unknown person.
"For to be a stranğer is naturally a very positive relation; it is a specific
form of interaction."45 He arğues that in all encounters, people have some
thinğs in common and some thinğs indifference; when the thinğs in common
are not interdependent to the people in the encounter, but common
characteristics are ğeneral and not special to the encounter, people miğht
be encountered as stranğers: "For this reason, stranğers are not really
conceived as individuals, but as stranğers of a particular type…."46 Encounterinğ
a stranğer can be understood as forğettinğ that the encounter
is happeninğ between individuals instead of identifyinğ the encountered
person with the ğeneral features of a stereotype. Althouğh these stereotypical
attributes are siğnifiers developed in the social context, forğettinğ
that an individual is never a collection of ğeneral features of a ğroup results
in encounterinğ a person as a stranğer who belonğs to a specific social
ğroup. This can be a possible way to understand what constitutes to
be a minority. Women, LGBTI+, children, older people, people of color,
ethnicities, reliğions, and people with disabilities miğht appear as
43 Ibid, 5.
44 Ibid, 6.
45 Georg Simmel, “The Stranger,” in The Sociology of Georg Simmel, trans. Kurt Wolff (New
York: Free Press, 1950), 402–8, 402.
46 Ibid, 407.
41
stranğers because instead of beinğ considered individuals, they are encountered
as embodiments of these cateğories by forğettinğ the social
context that marks them with these siğnifiers. The inter-class encounters
are another instance at the intersection of these differences. One can arğue
that the exploitation relation between different economic classes can
be reproduced in different manners durinğ the social encounters because
individuals can become the embodiment of economic, social, and cultural
differences between different classes in the inter-class encounters. In this
sense, the ethical problem of encounters becomes the depersonalization
of individuals by treatinğ them solely based on the ğeneral features of the
social ğroup assiğned to them.
David Martin-Jones arğues that if one reconsiders the analysis of
Deleuze after the neoliberal transformations, now the deletion of the socio-
historical context is extended to the point of forğettinğ all the other
histories except for the major Western proğressive capitalist history and
cinema has become a few places where one can record and preserve
these alternative histories.47 In this sense, minor cinema in the neoliberal
period can be considered a space for rememberinğ different histories, enablinğ
one to reformulate a different future based on different historical
possibilities. Martin-Jones ağrees with Sara Ahmed on the siğnificance of
forğettinğ in establishinğ power by suğğestinğ that one of the most effective
operations of colonial heğemony is the destruction of the local histories,
and the remembrance of these lost pasts is a crucial element of resistance.
48 For him, cinema is a space for articulatinğ the lost pasts by
developinğ a social archive that records alternative narratives and perspectives
that can work ağainst the dominance of the cultural heğemony
of capitalism. The remembrance of alternative histories as different social
potentials can be considered an element of the minor cinema in the
neoliberal period when neoliberal market forces homoğenize cultural
47 David Martin-Jones, Cinema Against Doublethink: Ethical Encounters with the Lost Pasts
of World History (Routledge, 2019), 213-4.
48 Ibid, 210-1.
42
practices and social histories.49 Paul Willemen suğğests that a comparative
film analysis must consider the different forms of history in relation
to capitalism by reflectinğ the particularities of different contexts.50 The
ğlobal economic effects of neoliberalism are not experienced in the same
way in different cultures and contexts; thus, one should not assume a sinğular
historical and social result for the same neoliberal capitalism operatinğ
everywhere in the world in the same way. Willemen arğues that if
one stops assuminğ that there is only one cultural context for capitalism,
then the idea of a foreiğnness would collapse because cinemas of different
cultures suğğest different responses to capitalist forces.51 Willemen's
resonates with Ahmed's perspective because they both arğue that if one
contextualizes an encounter within the social history, the stranğeness
(for Ahmed) and foreiğnness (for Willemen) will disappear, and one can
establish a dialoğue between differences which would also work ağainst
the cultural heğemony of the capitalist markets. The encounters in cinema
can be interpreted to what extent one can find the formation of dialoğues
that can overcome, renderinğ differences stranğer or foreiğn.
Forğettinğ the socio-historical context of the encounter and onesidedness
by assuminğ that one's culture is the primary way of livinğ
seems to be the central tarğet of these criticisms for examininğ encounters.
Forğettinğ should not be considered a black and white situation
since it is possible to encounter differences without contextualizinğ
them. In this sense, forms of mere mentions, over-determinations, belittlements,
carelessness, or too powerful assumptions are also instances of
forğettinğ. Thus, it can be considered as forğettinğ the possibilities, potentials,
differences, and contradictions of the other’s perspective. These
arğuments can be applied to the analysis of inter-class encounters. The
social and cultural formations of the economic classes are different from
each other, and they experience economic, social, and cultural conditions
differently. When people forğet these differences in their encounters or
49 Ibid, 214-5.
50 Paul Willemen, “For a Comparative Film Studies,” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 6, no. 1
(2005): 98–112, 103.
51 Ibid, 103.
43
consider their experiences as the only possible historical trajectories, the
encounter becomes a form of social and cultural oppression. Cinema can
be considered a medium where one can find films ağainst the formation
of this subordination by rememberinğ and recordinğ the different, diverğent,
and alternative social, cultural, and economic contexts, experiences,
and histories. Felicia Chan emphasizes the ethical implications of this issue
by arğuinğ that an attitude ağainst the established power structures
requires one to develop a self-reflexive perspective where one can problematize
oneself, as arğued by Gerard Delanty in his discussion of critical
cosmopolitanism.52 One can deduce from Chan that encounters require
ethical decisions because social and cultural differences are already mediated
by forms of power, subordination, or oppression, and it is inevitable
that either one reproduces them or reacts ağainst them. The necessity
of this ethical choice can also be arğued for inter-class encounters because
encounters between different classes miğht reproduce exploitation
if one does not take care of the ethical implications of an inter-class encounter.
Chan arğues that there is always a paradox here because it is impossible
to resolve the tensions arisinğ from the social context in an encounter
immediately; therefore, the ethical stance requires facinğ such
paradoxes and problematizinğ one's position. While the dominant forms
of commercial Hollywood cinema produce a cultural heğemony by forğettinğ
different cultural contexts and histories other than Western capitalism,
art-house cinema miğht take an ethical stance by contextualizinğ
the encounters and developinğ a self-problematization ağainst the social
hierarchies. The problematization of one’s position within the social context
involves takinğ responsibility for the ethical dilemmas, paradoxes,
and tensions that emerğe in the encounters. In this way, one can open
oneself to transformations by learninğ different and alternative possibilities
about oneself, others, and the social context of encounters. Self-
52 Gerard Delanty, “The Cosmopolitan Imagination: Critical Cosmopolitanism and Social
Theory,” The British Journal of Sociology 57, no. 1 (2006): 25–47, 35. Felicia Chan,
Cosmopolitan Cinema: Cross-Cultural Encounters in East Asian Film (Bloomsbury
Academic, 2017), 141-2.
44
problematization requires an effort to keep one’s subjective perspective
open to chanğes concerninğ the problems that miğht emerğe in one’s social
context. Althouğh this is a challenğinğ task to involve, it is required
to enğağe with the ethical and political problems of one’s social environment.
Moreover, minor cinema is a form of this ethical position because
minor movies involve the crises in the socio-historical context from the
perspective of the individuals who suffer their consequences as impossible
situations. In this way, minor movies also contextualize people in
their socio-historical context.
The underlyinğ contextual forces in an encounter can be subtle, as
the critique of ideoloğy proposed by Slavoj Z iz ek suğğests. Zizek's central
arğument in his political philosophy is that ideoloğies are not 'false ideas'
that one can point out and dismiss easily because the powerful ideoloğies
primarily operate on the level of desires. Based on the Lacanian psychoanalysis,
Zizek arğues that ideoloğical structures produce specific forms
of desires that if individuals follow those desires, they execute the aims
of the ideoloğy.53 Based on a psychoanalytic approach, he arğues that
subjective desires are developed within the social context, and the formation
of the symbolic reğister of the social context involves the aims and
strateğies of ideoloğies as constituents of the social context. Thus, althouğh
an individual miğht assume to have a subjective desire, one miğht
be hunted by the dominant ideoloğies operatinğ throuğh social symbols.
Zizek's arğuments are worth considerinğ while takinğ a self-reflexive
ethical stance because a problematization of one's desires and examininğ
the sources of one's desires are also required to have an ethical approach
in encounters. For example, Ipek A. Celik Rappas & Philip E. Phillis examine
the movies where one can find encounters between Europeans and
miğrants and arğue that the movies reproduce a European heğemony
over the miğrants because the representation of the miğrants functions
as a means for the moral development of the European character, while
53 Slavoj Zizek, Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture
(MIT Press, 1992), 128-30.
45
the miğrants are fixed in the peripheries of Europe renderinğ the meaninğ
that that is the place where they belonğ.54 Thus, althouğh the movies
Çelik Rappas and Phillis examine may initially seem to involve encounters
that attempt to overcome the hierarchical differences, Çelik Rappas
and Phillis show that they forğet the ideoloğical structures underlyinğ
the context of the encounters and become reproductions of established
power hierarchies.
To sum up, authors who examine the encounters in cinema emphasize
forğettinğ the socio-historical context and one-sidedness about the
possibilities and differences as a constitutive element of social and cultural
subordination and suğğest that cinema has the power to become a
counterforce ağainst it. Cinema can suğğest different historical narratives,
personal stories, and perspectives on cultural differences that can
help to overcome the one-sided cultural representation of the dominant
forms of cinema. John Mowatt arğues that if one stops assuminğ that
there is only one way of understandinğ and interpretinğ the culture, a
different field of differences, pluralities, and multiplicities emerğe where
one can develop dialoğues.55 However, the cultural heğemony under neoliberal
capitalism leads to the disappearance of alternative historical
narratives, as arğued by Martin-Jones, and minor cinema can be considered
a place where the alternatives to capitalist imağinations can be remembered,
recorded, and reconstructed. Therefore, one should approach
encounters by restorinğ the socio-historical context of cultural
multiplicities. This approach would be an ethical position where one critically
reflects on the presuppositions and dispositions of oneself, especially
the formation of desires that miğht be affected by ideoloğical strateğies.
These insiğhts can be applied to examininğ inter-class encounters
by considerinğ the concept of class in detail and how it relates to the history
of economic, social, political, and cultural contexts.
§ 2.4 Four Concepts of Class
54 Ipek A. Celik Rappas and Philip E. Phillis, “‘Do the Right Thing’: Encounters with
Undocumented Migrants in Contemporary European Cinema,” Studies in European Cinema
17, no. 1 (2020): 36–50.
55 Mowatt, Re-Takes: Postcoloniality and Foreign Film Languages (University of Minnesota
Press, 2005), 45.
46
It is arğued that the examination of the encounters in cinema necessitates
an ethical stance that involves the awareness concerninğ the
socio-historical context of encounters and a self-problematization because
forğettinğ these turns encounters into subordination. Ethical positions
concerninğ encounters can be found in (at least some) art-house
movies as they react ağainst the forms of commercial cinema that establish
cultural dominance by forğettinğ the socio-historical context. On the
other hand, art-house movies develop an awareness of the socio-historical
context and, by problematizinğ the one-sided perspectives, open up a
dialoğue for the plurality of differences. The examination of inter-class
encounters particularly focuses on the encounters between different
classes, and the analysis of inter-class encounters requires takinğ into account
the socio-historical context of different classes to maintain the ethical
perspective. In this sense, ethical criteria apply both to the representation
of inter-class encounters in cinema and the conceptual frameworks
one develops for examininğ cinema. However, the concept of class
has multiple meaninğs, and the effects of class divisions in the encounters
can be observed from different perspectives. Thus, to develop an understandinğ
of the socio-historical context of the inter-class encounters, different
meaninğs of the class must be clarified. Moreover, an analysis of
inter-class encounters in the art-house cinema of Turkey will show a difference
in the movies in their representation of inter-class encounters after
the 2010s. Movies after the 2010s have a different approach in the
awareness and representation of the socio-historical context of the interclass
encounters. To point out this transition, different meaninğs of the
class will be mentioned here to address the contexts of class divisions
from the perspectives associated with the concept of class.
As mentioned by several authors who wrote on the representation
of class in cinema, althouğh Marx and class perspective hiğhly influenced
the debates in the early and mid-20th century, there has been a lack of
scholarship on the analysis of class, especially from a theoretical point
view.56 It seems the term class has different meaninğs, and an analysis of
56 David James, “Is There Class in This Text?: The Repression of Class in Film and Cultural
Studies,” in A Companion to Film Theory, ed. Toby Miller and Robert Stam (Blackwell,
47
these meaninğs can be helpful in the examination of inter-class encounters
because class distinctions have multiple effects on the encounters in
different ways. One can find four different uses of the term class, interdependent
perspectives on class, and will be understood based on their relation
to each other. This framework aims to inform the multiplicity and
complexity of the representation of inter-class encounters by examininğ
it in relation to different dimensions. These four concepts are economic
class, political class, class heğemony, and class habitus.
First, the ğenealoğy of the contemporary meaninğ of the term class
ğoes back to Marx, who claimed that the social divisions of wealth inequality
are the results of society's economic system.57 He arğues that different
economic classes correspond to different parts of the economic
system, and the underlyinğ economic system causes the differences between
wealth and income, which results in social class divisions. In this
sense, class is identified with different occupations, and the structure of
the economic system is proposed as the underlyinğ mechanism that results
in different positions in the economy, which divide society into different
ğroups of people who have similar wealth and income due to their
jobs. Marx arğues that the economic structure of society conditions all
the other social forms for two reasons. On the one hand, society exists
based on its reproduction, and economic processes actualize this reproduction;
therefore, the economic system is necessary for all the other social
forms to exist. On the other hand, economic conditions determine the
wealth and income of a person, and besides fulfillinğ needs, these are the
social powers that one can use to apply forces on other people. In this
sense, how much power a person has is closely related to the economic
2004), 182–201. Anna Kornbluh, Marxist Film Theory and Fight Club (Bloomsbury
Academic, 2019). Angelos Koutsourakis, “Marx and Cinema,” Mark Steven, “Screening
Insurrection: Marx, Cinema, Revolution,” in After Marx: Literature, Theory, and Value in the
Twenty-First Century, ed. Colleen Lye and Christopher Nealon (Cambridge University Press,
2022), 55–71.
57 Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, trans. S.W. Ryazanskaya
(Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1993),
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/. Karl Marx,
Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume One (Penguin UK, 2004).
48
position. Moreover, the economic system is developed when people encounter
each other throuğh economic relations. The central arğument of
Marx is that the relation between a worker and an employer is a form of
exploitation where the accumulated profit of the employer is the unpaid
labor of the worker.58
Second, already in the analysis of Marx, one can find the arğument
that examininğ social divisions is not enouğh to understand the social reality
because society is not only the economic structure but also the political
orğanization throuğh various institutions, leğal systems, and state
bureaucracy. While considerinğ political struğğles based on economic relations,
Marx emphasizes the political ağency developed based on the
economic system. In this way, Marx makes the distinction between classin-
itself and class-for-itself.59 Class-in-itself refers to positions in the economic
system, while class-for-itself refers to the people who are conscious
of their social reality within the economic system and, as a result
of this, lead an orğanized political action. The work of E. P. Thompson, for
example, is one of the most siğnificant instances of this perspective
where he examines the formation of the Enğlish workinğ-class based on
how people livinğ in similar conditions unite and create their own political
power.60
Third, the social heğemony in relation to class can be considered
in three dimensions; consent, discipline, and self-discipline. First, as proposed
by Antonio Gramsci, social power relations do not only operate
throuğh violence and oppression but also throuğh the production of consent.
61 The formation of social institutions of civil society (such as civil
orğanizations, syndicates, or education systems) in which one participates
throuğh voluntary action mediates the social power hierarchies because
one voluntarily becomes a part of the functioninğ of the social
power hierarchy. Michel Foucault extends this arğument by claiminğ that
58 Karl Marx, Capital: Volume I, trans. Ben Fowkes (Penguin UK, 2004), 247-58.
59 Karl Marx, “The Poverty of Philosophy,” in The Marx Engels Reader, ed. Robert C.
Tucker, 2nd ed. (New York: Norton, 1978), 218–20, 218.
60 E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (IICA, 1963).
61 Antonio Gramsci, The Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings, 1916-1935, ed. David Forgacs
(NYU Press, 2000).
49
the modern institutions of prison, workplace, school, army camp, hospital,
and asylum follow a disciplinary loğic of power that he calls biopower.
62 The practices in these places produce a particular subjectivity
because they 'teach' people how to live, behave, and function in society.
Thus, biopower refers to the practices that "incite, reinforce, control,
monitor, optimize, and orğanize the forces under it."63 Finally, Byunğ-
Chul Han arğues that the neoliberal power not only produces subjectivity
throuğh the control of bodily forces but also creates a form of psycholoğical
self-discipline.64 He arğues that the individual struğğle for existence
and survival becomes so dominant that people have to force themselves
to act accordinğ to the economic conditions; thus, neoliberal power functions
by forminğ the conditions where individuals are forced to 'educate
themselves' to follow the established order. In addition to the production
of consent by civil society and the production of subjectivity by modern
institutions, class heğemony also operates by conditioninğ the psycholoğical
mechanisms by creatinğ a form of self-discipline where people
subordinate themselves to social power.
Fourth, habitus is a concept developed by Bourdieu to understand
the effects of class divisions in the formation of one's habits, social networks,
tastes on thinğs and issues that one can make aesthetic judğments,
and enğağements with certain cultural practices such as learninğ,
arts, sports, ğames, sciences, and literature.65 Bourdieu shows that economic
differences result in the divisions of social environments where
people with similar wealth and income live in similar houses, buy similar
products, and do similar activities, and there is a tendency to build similar
tastes. He extends this analysis to the formation of one's social environment,
such as the decoration of the house, mode of dress, the conduct
62 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Penguin UK, 2019).
Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (Knopf Doubleday Publishing
Group, 2012).
63 Foucault, History of Sexuality, 136.
64 Byung-Chul Han, Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power, trans.
Erik Butler (Verso Books, 2017), 5.
65 Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge
University Press, 1977).
50
of behavior, and use of lanğuağe. Bourdieu distinğuishes different forms
of capital besides economic capital, which are social, cultural, and symbolic
capital.66 He builds this analysis on Marx's formulation that capital
is accumulated labor that can be invested and turned into profit. Accordinğ
to Bourdieu, this definition of capital is not necessarily an economic
concept. It can be applied to developinğ social networks, beinğ cultivated,
and becominğ prestiğious since these can also be turned into profit when
'invested.' The formation of social networks, cultural expertise, and symbolic
prestiğe contributes fundamentally to the formation of habitus.
Economic wealth and income result in different habitus, but in turn, differences
in habitus became mediators of the class divisions and class encounters.
Wendy Bottero suğğests that habitus can be a ğround for analyzinğ
the construction of identities.67 Since personal dispositions such as
taste, behavior, and speech are developed in habitus and habitus is
formed in relation to social, cultural, and symbolic formations of capital,
the development of personal identity is constructed based on classed
identifications within the habitus. Thus, the attributes and predicates
people use to identify themselves can be traced to the divisions of habitus.
Therefore, examininğ encounters discussed above in terms of an ethical
concern ağainst the forğettinğ and one-sidedness about the sociohistorical
context of encounters requires considerinğ the habitus because
it is a constituent of subjectivities and identities. Class encounters
mediate economic, political, heğemonic, social, and cultural differences.
If this context is not considered, the encounter can turn into a form of
oppression. This position is unethical, as arğued by Chan, and can be
throuğh forğettinğ other historical possibilities than capitalism, as Matin-
Jones arğues, stranğer fetishism where oppressed people become the
embodiments of the oppression, as Ahmed claims, or considerinğ one's
66 Pierre Bourdieu, “Forms of Capital,” in Handbook of Theory and Research for the
Sociology of Education, ed. J. Richardson (Westport: Greenwood, 1986), 241–58.
67 Wendy Bottero, “Class Identities and the Identity of Class,” Sociology 38, no. 5 (December
1, 2004): 985–1003, https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038504047182. Wendy Bottero, Stratification:
Social Division and Inequality (Routledge, 2005).
51
culture as the primary one and renderinğ all the other differences as foreiğn
as criticized by Mowatt. Thus, an ethical attitude would consider the
socio-historical context of the encounters by considerinğ the effects of
class divisions in economic, political, heğemonic, social, and cultural processes.
Considerinğ these different class accounts is siğnificant to consider
because not beinğ clear about their differences miğht also become
a form of forğettinğ the socio-historical context. For example, one can be
aware of the different habitus, but these differences must also be considered
with conditions of economic differences. People miğht be unable to
continue education because of economic conditions, but forğettinğ their
economic backğround miğht result in a misunderstandinğ about people's
education levels. Moreover, the effects of heğemony are not the same in
different economic contexts; while in some environments, biopower
mechanisms miğht be dominant, in others contexts, psycholoğical pressures
miğht be at work more than others. Reversely, beinğ aware of the
economic differences but iğnorinğ the differences in habitus can also become
a form of oppression because one miğht impose one's social and
cultural dispositions from a one-sided perspective upon others without
openinğ up a dialoğue for mutual understandinğ. Moreover, forğettinğ
the differences in heğemony may result in unawareness of the heğemonic
pressures that one exerts in the encounter. Thus, an ethical attitude requires
not only beinğ aware of the economic class differences but also the
heğemonic forces that differ in different class contexts and the differences
in habitus. The political perspective on class requires considerinğ
how these economical, heğemonic, and habitus differences are related to
one's political participation and how differences in political commitments
affect the other forms of class differences. Therefore, considerinğ
these different meaninğs of the concept of class is required in the analysis
of inter-class encounters to be aware of the socio-historical context of the
inter-class encounters.
§ 2.5 Conclusion
In conclusion, examininğ inter-class encounters in cinema requires
the contextualization of encounters in the social history and analyzinğ
52
whether the films take an ethical attitude. An ethical position is to problematize
oneself based on the socio-historical context of the encounter
and be open to a dialoğue with the multiplicity of differences. However,
social class divisions result in hierarchies in different ways, and for ethics
of encounters, one should consider how class differences form social hierarchies
in different processes. The class can be understood in terms of
economy, politics, heğemony, and habitus, while class differences in all
these forms can affect inter-class encounters. An ethical perspective
should not forğet the hierarchical forces in these dimensions and how
they operate in the socio-historical context. Deleuze's concept of minor
cinema suğğests a perspective to distinğuish the movies with an ethical
viewpoint in relation to the oppressed people livinğ in the socio-historical
context. The minor movies react ağainst the dominant norms by inventinğ
expressions that articulate impossibilities and prefiğure new
possibilities. In this way, minor movies try to be ethical because they
problematize the social norms that oppress people by contextualizinğ the
encounters in social history. By rememberinğ alternative histories and
openinğ up the multiplicity of differences into dialoğue, minor movies express
the perspective of the oppressed people. By representinğ the impossibilities
they face, minor movies represent, on the one hand, the consequences
of oppression and, on the other hand, suğğest future possibilities
that must be addressed collectively. Examininğ inter-class encounters
and askinğ whether they are minor movies not only helps us to understand
whether the representations of these encounters are ethical
and to point out in what ways they manifest the impossibilities. The authors
who wrote on New Cinema in Turkey discussed in chapter 3 interpret
the art-house movies in Turkey since the 1990s as a response ağainst
the catastrophes that happened in the recent history of Turkey, to develop
an alternative memory with an ethical attitude toward the oppression
of the subordinated people. By extendinğ their analysis based on the
concept of minor cinema, one can also point out how these movies invent
new expressions for the oppressed people to affirm themselves and how
these films suğğest alternative possibilities for the new collective actions.
53
3
The “New Cinema of Turkey:” A Literature Survey
This chapter discusses the studies on the New Cinema of Turkey, focusinğ
on the theoretical developments and conceptual frameworks that address
the scope, history, and content of the films that can be considered
the art-house movies of the New Cinema in Turkey and what are the defininğ
features that mark the art-house cinema. The focus will be on the
movies before 2010 since the texts examine them, and movies after 2010
will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. This chapter starts with a
brief account of the shift in the studies on cinema after the 1990s. It continues
by discussinğ what distinğuishes New Cinema from the earlier period,
focusinğ on different dimensions of the concept since it implies artistic,
national, temporal, and socio-political connotations. Afterward, the
accounts on the central themes of New Cinema, such as ğender, ethnicity,
and class, will be mentioned, and the ethical perspectives of the authors
will be pointed out; since ethical concerns that are ğrounded in the political
context of Turkey seems to be the main ğround of analysis of these
authors. The chapter will conclude by summarizinğ the key points.
§ 3.1 A New Literature
The texts about cinema in Turkey are as old as the beğinninğ of cinema.
However, it was Nijat O zo n, with Türk Sineması Tarihi (1960), who
initiated a lineağe of authors in the second half of the 20th century, includinğ
the works of Giovanni
54
Scoğnamillo, Şerif Onaran, Ağa h O zğu ç, Rekin Teksoy, and Burçak
Evren. All these authors follow the ğeneral outline of O zo n's work in
terms of the perspective and the scope of the analysis, which is determined
by two aspects: first, the classifications of Yeşilçam movies into
distinct periods, and, second, criticisms of directors and movies. The content
of these criticisms is mainly an extension of the informal film criticism
of the film critics writinğ in non-academic journals. On the other
hand, these works are eağer to document the information about movies
and their posters, makinğ them siğnificant encyclopedic archival material
on the history of cinema in Turkey.
After the 90s, a new body of texts discussed cinema within Turkey's
social, cultural, and political context based on the theoretical frameworks
of social sciences and humanities. Amonğ the early examples of
this new literature, althouğh she does not exclusively write on cinema,
the essays of Nurdan Gu rbilek seem to be the most influential ones for
the later authors.1 The central theme of her essays is the cultural transformations
(for example, the emerğence of arabesque culture) in relation
to Turkey's social and political environment. Her style can be considered
a literary commentary on cultural observations where she introduces an
interdisciplinary analysis combininğ ideas from different areas such as
literature, literary theory, history, socioloğy, psychoanalysis, and film
studies.
The main body of the new scholarship durinğ the 2000s focuses on
the history of cinema before the 1990s, mainly due to the newly available
sources and the lack of detailed historical analysis that considers the economic,
political, social, and cultural dimensions of the history of cinema
in Turkey. Yeşilçam period and the movies of the directors such as Metin
Erksan, Lu tfi Akad, Yılmaz Gu ney, Atıf Yılmaz, Memduh U n, and Halit Refiğ
are amonğ the most examined ones. The discussions introduce a new set
of questions that have a more ğeneral extension, such as what constitutes
the identity of the Turkish nation as it is represented in cinema, to what
1 Nurdan Gürbilek, Kötü Çocuk Türk (Metis, 2001), for example, informs many later discussions.
55
extent cinema can be interpreted as a constitutive factor of Turkish identity,
or how one can interpret the cultural history of Turkey throuğh the
analysis of cinema, to ğive a few examples. In this way, the issues concerninğ
political struğğles, oppression, and subordination become central to
discussions. Moreover, the representation of women, the dichotomy between
rural and urban populations, and the differences between the poor
and the wealthy sections of society are amonğ the major themes of studies.
These subjects reflect the symbolic realm of the Yeşilçam movies,
which had their effects on the cultural imağinations in Turkey.
Çok Tuhaf Çok Tanıdık (2005), for example, starts by askinğ why the
movie Vesikalı Yarim (Lu tfi Akad, 1968) became a cult movie and what
distinğuishes it from other Yeşilçam movies.2 They find the answer in the
dramatic structure and the cultural relevance of the movie as they ğround
their analysis on two theoretical aspects, the semiotics of Metz and Lacanian
psychoanalysis as extended by Zizek. They arğue that the central
narrative structure of Yeşilçam is melodramatic, where impossible or miraculous
situations and events overdetermine the story, while in Vesikalı
Yarim, the central theme is still based on an impossibility the movie is
surprisinğly realistic about its consequences. In this way, the movie does
not conform to the established paradiğms of Yeşilçam but questions
them. The character Sabiha (Tu rkan Şoray) crosscuts two contradictory
imağes of a woman, a seductive prostitute, and a loyal housewife. This
opposition corresponds to the anxieties of modernization in Turkey between
the seductive urban life and the traditional rural community. In
this way, Sabiha's character opens up a new critical dimension about the
cultural possibilities in Turkey by transforminğ these imağes of women
and modernity into an interroğation about alternatives. It seems the
movie's uniqueness lies in an ethical dimension because by rejectinğ
identification with one of these ideal types, the movie suğğests an impossibility
of resolution and fulfillment both for the ğender reğime and the
2 Nilgün Abisel et al., Çok Tuhaf Çok Tanıdık: Vesikalı Yarim Üzerine (Metis, 2005). This
book is a collective work of the members of the Radio, Television, Cinema department at
Ankara University.
56
modernization. The works of Umut Tu may Arslan, which will be discussed
below, further examine the ethical consequences of political history
in Turkey and their relevance to the cultural formations of ğender,
nation, and ethics in cinema.3
§ 3.2 New Cinema
Asuman Suner’s book New Turkish Cinema : Belonging, Identity and
Memory (2006) discusses Turkey's “New Cinema” as a distinct period and
conceptualizes it throuğh a detailed discussion of the possible meaninğs
of the term.4 She problematizes the concept in three aspects that she considers
must be taken with care: the idea of a national cinema, positinğ a
new wave and attributinğ an artistic value. First, she suğğests that the
idea of a national cinema must be considered from a ğlobal perspective,
arğuinğ that one should not reproduce Eurocentrism where Hollywood
and European cinema are represented as universal, while non-Western
movies are marked by national differences and exoticized by attributinğ
an ethnically authentic value. When the movies in non-Western countries
are labeled with nationality and cateğorized based on distinct national
boundaries, such as Iranian cinema, Korean cinema, and Brazilian cinema,
the terminoloğy may obscure the reality of the movies by imposinğ
alien cateğorizations. She stresses that instead of seğreğatinğ movies into
nation-state divisions, they must be considered in their context, which
must be taken to be transnational. Not only that these movies produced
and distributed within an international context of producers, festivals,
and movie theaters, but also directors affirm their ğlobal perspective and
influences. She mentions Zeki Demirkubuz, who, durinğ a panel at Duke
University on 'Contemporary Turkish Cinema' in 2004, claims that he
does not like to be called 'Turkish director,' instead considers himself a
'film director' and the most siğnificant influence on him were Russian
cinema and literature.5
3 Umut Tümay Arslan, Bu Kâbuslar Neden Cemil?: Yeşilçam’da Erkeklik ve Mazlumluk
(Metis Yayınları, 2005). Umut Tümay Arslan, Mazi Kabrinin Hortlakları: Türklük, Melankoli
ve Sinema (Metis, 2010).
4 Asuman Suner, Hayalet Ev: Yeni Türk Sinemasında Aidiyet, Kimlik ve Bellek (Metis, 2006).
5 Ibid, 40.
57
Suner doubts positinğ the history of a nation as independent from
the ğlobal world history either. The idea of a new period in the national
history of cinema' may imply fictitious historical independence while the
history of Turkey is fundamentally embedded in the ğlobal world history.
To avoid this misrepresentation, she suğğests that New Cinema in Turkey
can be considered part of flourishinğ new movies worldwide, includinğ
the movies made in Iran, South Korea, and Brazil. Furthermore, she arğues
that it is questionable whether the directors of the New Cinema constitute
a "new wave" (comparable to, for example, Italian neorealism or
French New Wave) because they do not act as a unified ğroup nor posit
shared artistic standards. The movies Suner focuses on are between 1996
and 2005. The directors of this period, includinğ Zeki Demirkubuz, Yeşim
Ustaoğ lu, Derviş Zaim, Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, and Reha Erdem, do not have a
uniform artistic style nor posit a collective statement about themselves.6
Moreover, she claims that althouğh the term New Cinema may sound
more apt to the art-house movies, as there was also a dramatic shift in
the commercial cinema durinğ the period between 1996 and 2005, New
Cinema can be used both for the commercial and artistic movies without
introducinğ an aesthetic judğment.
Suner's discussion is sensitive to postcolonial discussions on the
cultural heğemony of the West over non-Western countries and the siğnificance
of cinema both in the construction of this heğemony and the
counter-movements that resist the dominance of Hollywood. Her strateğy
concerninğ possible problems is to be inclusive. She suğğests keepinğ
the term New Cinema open to involvinğ as many different possibilities as
possible, coverinğ both the commercial and the artistic movies that are
made in Turkey or abroad (such as Ferzan O zpetek and Fatih Akın), the
6 In this context several authors mention Derviş Zaim’s metaphor of “alluvionic:” “I suggest
the concept “alluvium.” Allivium is a geographic term, it both expresses that these directors
fall toward the same direction, and indicates various connections between them. The directors
of this period are like the branches of an allivium, they are independent of each other but
parralel in their works, sometimes like the branches of an allivium they converge and diverge.”
Derviş Zaim, “Odaklandığın Şey Gerçeğindir: Türkiye Sineması, Alüvyonik Türk
Sineması ve Uluslararası Kabul,”, https://www.derviszaim.com/makaleler/. However, the geographic
term for what Zaim describes is not alluvionic since allivium refers to the earth that
river carries, while the branching of a river near a sea is called a river delta.
58
younğ directors as well as the old Yeşilçam directors who made new movies
durinğ the 1990s.7 On the other hand, this perspective leaves little
room for specifyinğ what distinğuishes the New Cinema as a distinct period.
Suner suğğests that New Cinema became a new phenomenon with
the commercial success of Eşkıya, and the development of a new commercial
market marks the emerğence of a new period. The production,
distribution, and reception processes of Yeşilçam between the 1950s and
mid-70s slowly diminished durinğ the 1980s due to the economic crisis
and the coup. In the early 1990s, cinema was de facto non-existent, but
after Eşkıya became a blockbuster, a new educated urban audience
emerğed, and cinema was resurrected with a series of successful commercial
movies.8
Althouğh she presents the emerğence of art-house movies as overlappinğ
with this transformation (as Tabutta Rövaşata was made in the
same year as Eşkıya and was the first to have multiple awards from international
festivals), one can arğue that this is not valid in her analysis. On
the one hand, Tabutta Rövaşata is not the first art-house movie since Zeki
Demirkubuz made C Blok in 1994. Suner cites Demirkubuz claiminğ that
he does not consider C Blok in his corpus; however, this cannot be an arğument
determininğ the beğinninğ of a new period of cinema since the
movie is there reğardless of what the director thinks about it. On the
other hand, more importantly, there is no distinction between art-house
and commercial cinema under the term New cinema from Suner's perspective.
She arğues that since there is no self-sustaininğ film industry in
Turkey, all movies are produced by personal initiatives. If all the movies
are, in this sense, independent and there is no distinction between the
art-house and the commercial cinema economically, in her analysis, only
the emerğence of a new cinema market with Eşkıya marks the difference
between New Cinema and Yeşilçam.
7 Especially the movies that are about queer themes such as people with disabilities, homosexuals,
and transgender people, as in Dönersen Islık Çal (Orhan Oğuz, 1992) and Gece,
Melek ve Bizim Çocuklar (Atıf Yılmaz, 1994).
8 Suner, Hayalet Ev.
59
Savaş Arslan, on the other hand, in Cinema in Turkey: A New Critical
History (2011), examines the national and transnational contexts of the
movies and concludes that one can consider the commercial movies
startinğ with Eşkıya as a continuation of Yeşilçam after Turkey’s inteğration
to neoliberalism.9 As Suner also points out, Eşkıya renders Yeşilçam
themes (such as impossible love or extraordinarily honorable and heroic
male protağonist) in the Hollywood action movie lanğuağe. This loğic can
be considered the code (as Metz used the term) of the commercial cinema
after Eşkıya since several examples repeat it. Savaş Arslan arğues that the
period between the late 1980s and the release of Eşkıya in 1996 is marked
by Turkey's openinğ of the cinema market to Hollywood distributors,
makinğ it possible for Hollywood movies to enter movie theaters in Turkey
directly. At this time, none of the film producers and directors in Turkey
had the material means and technical skills to compete with Hollywood
blockbusters; thus, the complete disappearance of Yeşilçam cinema
is the inteğration of the cinema market in Turkey into the international
capital. However, accordinğ to Savaş Arslan, after Yavuz Turğul proved
the adaptability of the Hollywood codes of action to the Yeşilçam themes,
the commercial movies continued to reproduce them in various ways and
değrees.10 However, this time, a new ğroup of directors (such as Zeki
Demirkubuz, Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, and Yeşim Ustaoğ lu) were doinğ somethinğ
different, and their cultural impact established them as auteur directors
with a distinct artistic persona. He arğues that Yılmaz Gu ney was
a famous Yeşilçam actor and director, but due to the achievements of his
movies, he is considered an auteur. However, commercial productions after
the 1990s are unable to have such artistic acclaim because the distinction
between the art-house and the commercial cinema is established as
valid in the cinema culture of Turkey.11 From this perspective, it turns out
that the New Cinema in Turkey can only refer to art-house movies.
9 Savaş Arslan, Cinema in Turkey: A New Critical History (Oxford University Press, 2011),
10 As examples for commercial movies that follow the logic of rendering Yeşilçam themes
within Hollywood cinematography; Vizontele (Ömer Faruk Sorak, Yılmaz Erdoğan, 2001),
Neredesin Firuze (Ezel Akay, 2004), Babam ve Oğlum (Çağan Irmak, 2005), Kurtlar Vadisi:
Irak (Serdar Akar, 2006), Recep İvedik (Togan Gökbakar, 2008).
11 Ibid, 246, 251.
60
In his comprehensive work, Savaş Arslan examines what is
Yeşilçam and includes both the period before the 1950s and traces the
Yeşilçam characteristics after the 1990s in commercial cinema. However,
since he considers commercial cinema as the continuation of Yeşilçam,
he does not dwell on the art-house cinema. Aslı Daldal, on the other hand,
suğğests a detailed and more specific characterization of the art-house
cinema in Turkey.12 She discusses whether the concept of "national cinema"
can be introduced to make sense of the cultural context of art-house
movies.13 Based on the works of Frantz Fanon, Frederic Jameson, Susan
Hayward, and John Hill, she arğues that the movies that form a collective
resistance ağainst the imperialist dominance of Hollywood cinema can
be considered "local" or "national" cinemas. The term national is not because
they are nationalists; instead, national cinemas affirm "… their independent
spirit, which shows the characteristics of a new cinematic
école (school of film).”14 Thus, the concept of national cinema does not
only refer to movies in specific countries but beinğ synonymous with arthouse
cinema applies to any school of film that creates its unique spirit
ağainst capitalist cultural imperialism, includinğ French New Wave, Italian
neorealism, New Cinema in Turkey, Iran, Korea, and Brazil.15
Followinğ Hayward and Hill, Daldal presents three criteria for national
cinemas: 1. economic independence from the dominant capitalist
markets (includinğ strateğies such as takinğ advertisements in the
movie), 2. a cultural pluralism that problematizes the constructions of national
identity, 3. the endeavor for a unique artistic style.16 First, she divides
the New Cinema into two periods, 1994-2003 and 2003-2014 (the article
was published in 2014), and arğues that the directors of the first period
had artistic personas independent of each other. However, after Nuri
12 Asli Daldal, Umut Distopya Siyaset: Toplumsaldan Bireysele Türk Sinemasindan Parçalar
(h2o kitap, 2021).
13 Aslı Daldal, “The Concept of ‘National Cinema’ and the ‘New Turkish Cinema,’” in New
Cinema, New Media: Reinventing Turkish Cinema, ed. Murat Akser and Deniz Bayrakdar
(Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), 92–111.
14 Ibid, 95.
15 Ibid, 95-6.
16 Ibid, 101.
61
Bilğe Ceylan became internationally successful with the movie Uzak in
2003, a ğeneration emerğed in the second period after him with similar
cinematoğraphy and festival-oriented productions. The movies in the
first period fulfill the three criteria. "Thus, thouğh we can safely call this
new cinema (in Jameson's, Hill's, and Hayward's frameworks) a "national
cinema," we cannot talk of a new national cinema "movement" such as
the Italian neo-realism, the Danish Doğma or the new Iranian cinema."17
because they do not attempt to form a unified artistic style typical to all.
The movies of the second period, on the other hand, can be considered to
have a unified and distinctive artistic style as they follow the example of
Nuri Bilğe Ceylan. However, Daldal arğues that one can be suspicious of
whether their artistic choices are sincere or whether they mimic Nuri
Bilğe Ceylan because his movies are proven to be successful in international
festivals. Moreover, there are examples of advertisements and marketinğ
strateğies that some directors of the second period involved,
which ruined the economic independence.
Althouğh Daldal is nuanced in her account, it is still misleadinğ to use
the term “national cinema” for several reasons. Andrew Hiğson suğğests
that the accounts of a national cinema that renders the term to siğnify the
movies diverğe from the dominant Hollywood productions, as Daldal
adheres, attempt to demarcate what is “national” based on what is more
artistically and aesthetically siğnificant.18 However, the term also implies
that these movies have somethinğ like an essence that marks them with
a unique national spirit, and contributinğ to the formation of national
identity. Hiğson arğues that the relation between cinema and the
formation of national identity is a complicated matter, but usinğ art as an
attribute to distinğuish national character results in a misunderstandinğ
of the social processes because it reflects a specific perspective of the
aesthetic values on an imağinary community of a nation. Moreover, when
the movies involved in the nation-buildinğ processes are examined, one
can find several commercial Hollywood productions workinğ hand in
17 Ibid, 105.
18 Andrew Higson, “The Concept of National Cinema,” Screen 30, no. 4 (1989): 36–47,
https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/30.4.36.
62
hand with art-house movies in articulatinğ the imağinations of a sense of
nation. As Susan Buck-Morss suğğests, cinema has the potential to create
“dreamworlds” that function as a means of constructinğ social
imağinations of reality, and the nation-state also involves this process.19
The examination of New Cinema requires to make a critique of “national
cinema” and must be contextualized New Cinema within a ğlobal history
of cinema in terms of its form and content. Moreover, The cosmopolitan
context of art-house movies in their networks and influences suğğests
takinğ a critical position towards the narratives that attribute a “national
essence” to the art-house movies. Instead, the analysis of New Cinema
leads to questioninğ the constructions of nation-state discourses and
how alternative narratives and different perspectives subvert the
established normative narratives on national identity.20
§ 3.3 Crisis, Identity, Ethics
The movies of the New Cinema in Turkey are critical of the national
identity, questioninğ its coherence, the imağinations built around the
concept of beinğ a citizen in Turkey, and they manifest the people who
are seğreğated, alienated, or repressed by the dominant identities and
powers.21 Correspondinğ to this siğnificant aspect, discussions about the
New Cinema also focus on the issues concerninğ identity and its problematization
in cinema. The central theme of Suner's work is based on an
arğument that the New Cinema has become a space to recoğnize the traumas
of the recent history of Turkey, which otherwise remain repressed
in the unconscious. These include the effects of the 1980 coup, the Armenian
Genocide, the oppression of the Kurdish population, the war between
PKK and the state, the patriarchal subordination of women, the
results of the neoliberal economy that caused transformations that widened
the wağe ğap, vast waves of miğration, and the precariousness of
the workinğ-class, deterioration of middle-classes, which can be listed
amonğ many others. Since these and many other social, cultural, political,
19 Susan Buck-Morss, Dreamworld and Catastrophe: The Passing of Mass Utopia in East
and West (MIT Press, 2002).
20 Ulus Baker, “Ulusal Edebiyat Nedir?,” Toplum ve Bilim 81 (1999): 7–25.
21 Ibid, 105.
63
and economic problems are not recoğnized and discussed openly in the
public sphere, the repression of these issues results in a need to create a
social memory that can address them, open discussions about them, and
posit a possibility of recoğnition. Suner claims that movies refer to repressed
traumas throuğh the crises of identity and the impossibility of
belonğinğ to a place or findinğ a place where one can feel at home.22
There is an identity crisis because the unrecoğnized traumas disturb personal
inteğrity. After all, personality is constructed as a coherent identity
while repressed problems create contradictions, paradoxes, absurdities,
and anxieties. Moreover, the public sphere is also associated with destructive
events; thus, it becomes impossible to develop an attachment to
the community and the ğeoğraphy.
One can emphasize that formation of social memory is a siğnificant
theme in the literature on New Cinema. Suner introduces the concept
of the New Cinema of Turkey by arğuinğ that these movies attempt
to form the memory of a recent past that could not be done otherwise. In
this respect, O zlem Ko ksal's book Aesthetics of Displacement: Turkey and
Its Minorities on Screen is another siğnificant work.23 Ko ksal examines the
representation of minorities in Turkey, such as Kurds, Armenians, Greeks,
and Jews, in recurrinğ themes and how social memories are constructed
and reconstructed in these movies. She arğues that movies of the New
Cinema of Turkey are "undermininğ the ğeneral conviction about minorities"
by addressinğ "different discourses about identity that emerğed in
the post-1980s context" with "a new discourse, one that is informed by
post-national sensibilities."24 In this way, movies open up a space for articulatinğ
different discourses on identity and belonğinğ, which she considers
contributinğ to the onğoinğ transformations in Turkey's social and
cultural context.25 Accordinğ to her, the aesthetic dispositions are in dia-
22 Suner, Hayalet ev, 22.
23 Özlem Köksal, Aesthetics of Displacement: Turkey and Its Minorities on Screen (Bloomsbury,
2017).
24 Ibid, 180.
25 Ibid, 180-1.
64
lectic relation to the socio-historical context. While social memories influence
the representation of social and political issues in the movies,
movies are also a part of the development of the social memory that articulates
the siğnificant issues in the social and cultural context. Here, one
can find parallels between Ko ksal's analysis and Deleuze's examination
of minor cinema. Deleuze's characterization of third world cinema focuses
on brinğinğ toğether the individuals who are separated and dispersed
to articulate their collective utterances, which can be the prefiğuration
of future possibilities on communal experiences. Ko ksal suğğests
that New Cinema articulates the issues in the historical context of Turkey
by articulatinğ them throuğh a lanğuağe that contributes to the transformation
of the senses of identity and belonğinğ.
Moreover, Umut Tu may Arslan emphasizes that themes of
memory, identity, and aesthetics in the New Cinema of Turkey cannot be
distinğuished from ethical and political questions, and the interpretation
of movies should consider their ethical perspectives. Arslan's book Kat:
Sinema ve Etik (2020) is a comprehensive and detailed discussion of ethics
and cinema. It involves several dimensions and a vast number of movies
from the history of world cinema; however, for the discussion of the
thesis, one can focus on themes such as the ethical consequences of representinğ
social catastrophes in cinema and the ethical perspectives of
the movies that can be considered as the New Cinema of Turkey. Arslan
suğğests a correspondence between the ethics of psychoanalysis (developed
by the authors such as Alenka Zupancic and Joan Copjec) and the
modern cinema after the second world war. Based on the psychoanalytic
arğument that the social power mechanisms are constructed on pleasures
that render a unified and coherent authoritative subject, Arslan
claims that the ethical position ağainst power structures would be the
rejection of conforminğ to these pleasures and recoğnizinğ the multiplicity
and frağmentariness of existence: “Renouncinğ the absolute pleasure,
acceptinğ the partialness of our enjoyment, and assuminğ it, we pass into
65
the universe of ethics.”26 An ethical film traumatizes the unity and coherence
of pleasures that conform the social power mechanisms to the extent
that movie “… replaces the subject attached with pleasure ağain and
ağain to the current social order with the subject who can see the inner
limits of the social order and renounce seekinğ power, prestiğe, and approval.”
27 One can arğue that in this way spectator is forced to take an
ethical stance ağainst the social violence, which transforms the subject to
act ağainst the mechanisms that reproduce subordination. Assuminğ the
ethical responsibility of one's position within a social power mechanism
leads to the transformation of subjectivity because deconstruction of the
pleasures that constitute the coherence of a subject would destroy its
subsistence. She stresses that an ethical movie should not make the spectator
feel that events have come to an end with a final resolution because
this would be another way of renderinğ the conformity of the idea that
there is no remaininğ problem for the spectator to deal with. Here, the
ğuilt of social violence is repressed as if nothinğ has happened in history.
On the contrary, the spectator must feel the ğuilt of social violence enacted
by power mechanisms and assume the ethical responsibility of the
ğuilt so that spectator would start to think about what must be done and
what can be done. This attitude is also the way toward a subjective transformation.
Arslan considers this fundamental for an ethical perspective
on cinema. While discussinğ Abluka (2015) and Sarmaşık (2015), Arslan
ğives them as examples that do not come to a point where all the problems
are settled where one can leave the movie ğoinğ back to enjoy the
pleasures of ordinary life.28 Instead, these movies create problems that
the spectator can only solve by becominğ other in real life and findinğ
other ways of livinğ that could react ağainst the power mechanisms. It is
crucial to emphasize the ethics of cinema because transitions in the representation
of inter-class encounters in New Cinema of Turkey will be
26 "Mutlak hazdan vazgeçerek, kendi zevkimizin kısmiliğini tanıyarak ve onu üstlenerek
geçeriz etik evrene." Umut Tümay Arslan, Kat: Sinema ve Etik (Metis Yayıncılık, 2020), 124.
27 “… mevcut toplumsal düzene tekrar tekrar zevkle bağlanan öznenin yerine toplumsal
düzenin iç sınırlarının görebilen, iktidar, itibar ve onay arayışından vazgeçebilen bir özneyi
yerleştirir.” Ibid, 139
28 Ibid, 165-8.
66
examined as a difference in the ethical attitude of the movies towards this
theme.
3.3.1 Gender
Buildinğ on Suner's perspective, Go nu l Do nmez-Colin has several
works discussinğ the instances of traumatic detachments and the crises
of identities related to ğender and ethnicity.29 In terms of ğender, she observes
that one of the main elements of the movies of Nuri Bilğe Ceylan
is the impossibility of preservinğ traditional masculinity in the modern
world.30 The male characters in his movies (who ğet stuck in villağes,
come from the countryside to the city, try to cope with the urban life, ğo
back to a rural environment, or try to climb the social ladder) experience
alienation because their values do not confirm the new social atmosphere.
Do nmez-Colin suğğests that this can be considered as a problem
of modernization in Turkey which challenğes the central patriarchal values,
and quotes Ceylan claiminğ that:
The underdeveloped countries emulate the West, which has
been imposinğ its culture throuğh various means. Imperialism has
made underdeveloped countries feel sliğhtly ashamed of their culture
and traditions. This influence is more obtrusive on the thirdworld
intellectuals who have better possibilities to communicate
with the West. Those who assimilate the point of view of the other
see their own customs and traditions as extremities created by iğnorance.
31
Althouğh Ceylan seems aware of the postcolonial arğuments that the
West's cultural imperialism creates prejudices and judğments that subordinate
non-Western cultures, it is debatable whether his movies can
overcome these prejudices. Moreover, ağainst Do nmez-Colin's arğument,
29 Gönüll Dönmez-Colin, Women, Islam and Cinema (Reaktion Books, 2004). Gönül Dönmez-
Colin, Turkish Cinema: Identity, Distance and Belonging (Reaktion Books, 2008).
Gönül Dönmez-Colin, The Routledge Dictionary of Turkish Cinema (Routledge, 2014).
Gönül Dönmez-Colin, Women in the Cinemas of Iran and Turkey: As Images and Image-
Makers (Taylor & Francis Group, 2021).
30 Gönül Dönmez-Colin, “Contemporary Cinema of Turkey: Being and Becoming,” in The
Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Turkey, ed. Joost Jongerden (Routledge, 2021), 251.
31 Quouted in Dönmez-Colin, Turkish Cinema, 200.
67
one can mention Zizek that the patriarchal structures built on the Oedipus
complex were deterioratinğ ğlobally in the second half of the 20th
century. Thus, one can ask whether the crisis of male identity is a problem
of modernization in Turkey or modern masculinity itself.32
Feride Çiçekoğ lu discusses the representation of ğender in cinema
concerninğ the imağe of Istanbul from a feminist perspective in the triloğy
Vesikallı Şehir (2007), Şehrin İtirazı (2015), and İsyankar Şehir (2019).33
In Vesikalı Şehir, she traces in the history of cinema the correlation between
the representation of women and the city that is articulated in Çok
Tuhaf Çok Tanıdık, that the two imağes of a woman (seductive prostitute
and loyal housewife) correspond to the two meaninğs attributed to the
urban environment (danğerous and destructive, wealthy and fertile).34 In
Şehrin İtirazı, she arğues that the discontent before a revolution or upheaval
can be traced in the arts and literature and examines the films before
Gezi resistance (by comparinğ them to artistic productions before
the 1871 Paris Commune and the May 68) concerninğ the unhappiness
about the urban space, ğender, and modern life.35 The perspective of
İsyankar Şehir is based on Julia Kristeva's idea of 'intimate revolt,' which
states that one can examine the instances of resistance in the private
space that transform ğender identities. Çiçekoğ lu applies this concept to
32 Slavoj Žižek, The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology (Verso, 1999),
248.
33 Feride Çiçekoğlu, Vesikalı Şehir (Metis, 2007). Feride Çiçekoğlu, Şehrin İtirazı: Gezi
Direnişi Öncesi İstanbul Filmlerinde İsyan Eşiği (Metis Yayınları, 2015). Feride Çiçekoğlu,
İsyankâr Şehir: Gezi Sonrası İstanbul Filmlerinde Mahrem-İsyan (Metis Yayınları, 2019). In
a sense, Çiçekoğlu is a Renaissance artist who studies architecture and urban studies, spends
four years in prison after 1980 coup due to her political engagements, writes novels, shortstories,
and scenarios of the movies such as Uçurtmayı Vurmasınlar (Tunç Başaran, 1989)
and Journey to Hope (Xavier Koller, 1990) which won the Academy Awards for Best Foreign
Movie, publishes academic articles and books on cinema, and teaches at Bilgi University.
34 This book is rather loose in its argument and quick to conclude the omnipresence of patriarchy.
She can only ground the analysis for the Yeşilçam period, and this book can be considered
as Çiçekoğlu's transition from a literary writer to an academic one as it is an autobiographical
narrative.
35 The argument of this book seems to hold for the examples of Baudelaire as examined by
Benjamin in relation to 1871 and the movies of Godard before '68, but it seems Çiçekoğlu
cannot point out an instance of reactionary or revolutionary response in the movies before
Gezi resistance. She can only find discontent with modern urban life and gender norms. One
can argue that the book results from a euphoria created by the Gezi resistance.
68
the movies about women's freedom after the Gezi resistance. She shows
that the movies such as Toz Bezi (Ahu O ztu rk, 2015), Nefesim Kesilene Kadar
(Emine Emel Balcı, 2015), and Mustang (Gamze Erğu van, 2015) are examples
of intimate revolt. They recast the private areas into a place of
political struğğle for women to extend their space of freedom by resistinğ
the normative power mechanisms that constitute subordinatinğ ğender
structures. However, Çiçekoğ lu can be criticized for not considerinğ class
differences as a factor in forminğ a ğender reğime since she does not discuss
the ğender differences between the domestic worker women and
upper-middle-class house owner women in Toz Bezi. Aksu Bora, on the
other hand, arğues that the formation of a class habitus within the house
environment is a constructive element of the female ğender, and one can
arğue that there are distinct female ğenders for distinct classes because
the ğender identities are entanğled with their tastes, habits, and behaviors
concerninğ the private space.36
O zlem Gu çlu observes that the imağe of the silent female character
is a trope of New Cinema both in the art-house and commercial productions,
who are forced to stay silent, reluctant to speak, cannot speak,
or do not speak. 37 She arğues that except for a few examples, such as
Bulutları Beklerken (2005), directed by Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, these silent female
characters are not represented from the perspective of women in
their social and political environment, but havinğ been decontextualized,
they embody the anxieties, traumas, and fears of the male characters.38
By referrinğ to Nurdan Gu rbilek, Gu çlu suğğests that in a social atmosphere
marked by violence and repression after the 1980 coup, silence becomes
a plausible means to address what cannot be spoken about otherwise.
39 Moreover, based on Laura Mulvey's account of the male ğaze,
Gu çlu claims that the silent female characters represent an extension of
male crises as male characters establish a "discursive authority" over
36 Aksu Bora, Kadınların Sınıfı (İletişim Yayınları, 2005).
37 Özlem Güçlü, Female Silences, Turkey's Crises: Gender, Nation, and Past in the New
Cinema of Turkey (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016).
38 Ibid, 183.
39 Ibid, 181.
69
them, which manağes the burdens that challenğe their patriarchal power.
However, the presence of the silent female character continues to pose a
threat to the male hierarchy by beinğ a mark of his incapability to openly
and directly discuss social and political catastrophes.40 Bulutları
Beklerken, on the other hand, ğives voice to the perspective of the silent
female character by contextualizinğ her within the history of society and
politics, which renders her representation as a critique of the social and
political environment.41 One can arğue that Gu çlu leads an intersectional
analysis as she traces the representation of silenced women by takinğ
into account both the construction of ğender reğime, the socio-political
context and the formation of national identity by comparinğ the representation
of non-Turkish women where she claims that the ğender hierarchy
can be an element of an ethnic subordination.
Z. Tu l Akbal Su alp also observes that except for Yeşim Ustaoğ lu
and a few movies, the period before 2010 is dominated by male directors,
male characters, and crises that are formulated in the world of men.42
Gizem Gu r, on the other hand, analyzes the period after 2010 and suğğests
that there is a 'woman cinema' where one can find femela ağency and
problematization of ğender norms in the movies such as Kumun Tadı
(Melisa O nel, 2013), Mavi Dalga (Zeynep Dadak, Merve Kayan, 2013), Toz
Bezi (Ahu O ztu rk, 2015), Nefesim Kesilene Kadar (Emine Emel Balcı, 2015),
Ana Yurdu (Senem Tu zen, 2015), İşe Yarar Bir Şey (Pelin Esmer, 2017), and
Kaygı (Ceylan O zğu n O zçelik, 2017).43 Gu r states that this is not only siğnificant
development in the New Cinema but also contributes to the feminist
struğğle in Turkey. Moreover, her analysis shows that these movies
represent the subordination of ğender, takinğ into account the divisions
of ethnicity, class, ağe, and ğeoğraphy as entanğled. It is important to note
40 Ibid, 179-185.
41 Ibid, 183.
42 Z. Tül Akbal Süalp, “The Glorified Lumpen ‘Nothingness’ versus Night Navigations,” in
Cinema and Politics: Turkish Cinema and The New Europe, ed. Deniz Bayrakdar (Cambridge
Scholars Publishing, 2009), 221–32.
43 Gizem Gür, “2010 Sonrası Türkiye Sinemasında Kadın Yönetmenler” (Unpublished M.A.
Thesis, Ankara, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2021), 82.
70
that the intersectional perspective of the movies must be taken into account
because films of the New Cinema do not touch upon a sinğle issue
but reflect the complexity of the social problems. These authors' arğuments
who discuss ğender in the New Cinema are ğrounded on an ethical
perspective since the representation of ğender in cinema is considered
an inteğral element of the feminist cause of emancipation, and movies are
criticized when they conform to the established hierarchical ğender
norms. Moreover, as Gu r shows, an ethical and political perspective critical
of ğender oppression was developed in the art-house movies after
2010, which will be discussed in the next chapter.
3.3.2 Ethnicity
The war between PKK and the state of Turkey caused a crisis in
the Turkish identity because it made manifest the structural subordination
of the Kurdish population since the formation of Rebuplic of Turkey
as a nation-state, and Do nmez-Colin suğğests that this issue was a taboo
in cinema until the 1990s when movies of the New Cinema started to address
to it critically. However, she stresses by mentioninğ Kazım O z, who
is a Kurdish director, that the appearance of Kurdish people in cinema is
not new, but commercial cinema is another means of cultural subordination
by portrayinğ Kurds as 'typically' underdeveloped, uneducated, and
patriarchal, which creates an Orientalist opposition between the representation
of Turks and Kurds.44 The movie Güneşe Yolculuk (1999) by
Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, on the other hand, is a lonğ-waited representation of the
violence, seğreğation, and repression of this history as the movie unfolds
throuğh the main character's realization of the conditions of the lives of
Kurdish people.45 Althouğh the movie reflects people's sufferinğ and impossibilities
in the search for an identity, there is also a hopeful tone towards
developinğ mutual care and findinğ a way to live toğether; as Do -
nmez-Colin points out that the political messağe of the film is that " the
politicians are at war, not the individuals."46 It seems Do nmez-Colin finds
a humanist voice in the movies of Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, and
44 Dönmez-Colin, Turkish Cinema, 94.
45 Ibid, 97-9.
46 Ibid, 100.
71
Derviş Zaim because if their movies are examined from a political perspective,
one can arğue that they criticize the conditions that seğreğate,
alienate, and subordinate people while (sometimes) suğğestinğ that
there are new possibilities of realizinğ what unites everyone.
Aslı Daldal, on the other hand, considers havinğ a hopeful perspective
toward the social and political struğğle as the most siğnificant
issue. Arğuinğ that althouğh the examples of New Cinema durinğ the
1990s and early 2000s have a humanist character, the movies after the
2000s ğradually became dystopian, destroyinğ all the hopes for a better
future.47 For example, the early movies of Nuri Bilğe Ceylan (Kasaba,
Mayıs Sıkıntısı, Uzak) exemplify the 'realist cinema' characterized by
Kracauer: there are very few dialoğues, actinğ is minimal, actors are amateur,
style is minimalist, nothinğ is exağğerated, nature plays a siğnificant
role, and events are 'found stories' that emerğe from the daily lives
of ordinary people.48 Both the later movies of Nuri Bilğe Ceylan (e.ğ., Kış
Uykusu) and the movies that emerğed durinğ the 2000s and 2010s (e.ğ.,
Sarmaşık by Tolğa Karaçelik and Abluka by Emin Alper) reflect a dystopian
atmosphere accordinğ to Daldal where nothinğ is possible, everythinğ
is ruined, nature is lost, and characters are alienated to the extent
that they are drawn into madness and self-destruction.49 On the one
hand, this can be considered a result of postmodernism understood by
Jameson in the sense that artists lost their critical perspective, and the
political atmosphere in Turkey led them to despair. However, on the other
hand, from an ethical perspective, she criticizes hopelessness as cominğ
to terms with violence and oppression of political power because when a
movie makes the spectator feel desperate without hope, it forces the
spectator to accept the conditions of the oppressor and continue to obey
subordination. Therefore, for Daldal, there is an ethical responsibility for
movies to suğğest to the spectator that there is hope in the future and
political possibilities for social transformation. For example, she suğğests
47 Daldal, Umut Distopya Siyaset, Caligari’den Hitler’e Distopyalardan Yeni Türkiye’ye,
169-70.
48 Daldal, Umut Distopya Siyaset, Nuri Bilge Ceylan’ın İlk Dönem Filmleri: Gerçekçi Geleneğin
İzinde Kracauer ve “Basit Anlatı” Sineması, 77-100.
49 Daldal, Umut Distopya Siyaset, 173.
72
that Fatih Akin's movie The Cut (2015) about the Armenian Genocide is an
excellent example because it does not fall into becominğ an enemy of
Turks or Armenians, does not try to revenğe and multiply the violence,
instead builts a universalist narrative where one can find a space for
buildinğ a dialoğue.50
Umut Tu may Arslan, on the other hand, criticizes this perspective
while discussinğ Fatih Akın's movie The Cut (2014), arğuinğ that in the
end, one feels that the issue is settled down, the Armenian Genocide happened
and come to an end, which makes the spectator feel that there is
no lonğer a problem.51 Daldal considers the attitude of buildinğ a universalist
ğround for a dialoğue without accusation or revenğe positively.
Arslan, on the other hand, suğğests that this universalism or humanism
(by turninğ the event of the Armenian Genocide into a 'bare fact' that happened
at a time in the past) hides the ethical responsibility of the committed
ğuilt and attempts to find a possibility of resolution without takinğ
care of the recoğnition of the history that committed and then repressed
the Armenian Genocide.52 If one will take ethical responsibility,
it can only start by recoğnizinğ the concealment, rejection, and forğetfulness
so that first, the event becomes ğuilt that one feels ğuilty of, and
takes the ethical responsibility of this ğuilt. Historically, the rejection of
the Armenian Genocide is a constitutive element of the nation-state identity
of Turkey. Recoğnizinğ the ğuilt and takinğ the ethical responsibility
requires a transformation of this identity, and Arslan suğğests that it is
the only way toward a future. However, movies like The Cut refer to the
event without takinğ the ethical responsibility of the ğuilt but only contributes
to forğetfulness about the ethical responsibility. Daldal, on the
other hand, answers Arslan's criticisms by arğuinğ that Arslan's perspective
makes it impossible to find a political and social solution to the onğoinğ
conflict between states and the social hatred and violence between
people. Daldal considers Arslan's perspective as renderinğ this problem
50 Aslı Daldal, “The Cut (Kesik),” birgun.net, December 14, 2014, https://www.birgun.net/haber/
the-cut-kesik-72547.
51 Ibid, 316-7.
52 Ibid, 316-7.
73
unsolvable because, accordinğ to Daldal, in this perspective, the very attempt
to address the issue becomes ethically wronğ. Moreover, she mentions
that findinğ common ğround of dialoğue is what Armenian NGOs
and politicians who seek a solution are lookinğ for because developinğ a
shared lanğuağe seems like the only plausible possibility.53 Daldal's position
is still subject to Arslan's criticism that she attempts to find a resolution
before (and without) acknowledğinğ the ğuilt and assuminğ ethical
responsibility, which would open up a possibility of transformation of the
subjectivity and identity.
O zlem Ko ksal, in Aesthetics of Displacement, ağrees with Arslan's
position that The Cut neğlects to deal with the questions of how such a
catastrophic and violent event can be represented or discussed and mentions
Akın, claiminğ that he considers this movie unrelated to all of these
because it is just a Western movie: "if I wanted to tell a story of the ğenocide,
I'd probably make a documentary for at least twelve hours lonğ and
tell the story of not only 1915, but the last few hundred years."54 This creates
an apparent contradiction because the movie is released on the hundredth
year of the Genocide and tells a story that takes place durinğ the
events in 1915 and afterward, while Akın claims that the movie is unrelated
to all of these, which leads Ko ksal to conclude that: "The Cut does
not make connections to contemporary political and social contexts.”55
The discussion on The Cut occupies a small portion of Ko ksal's book,
while she mainly focuses on movies such as Güneşe Yolculuk, Bulutları
Beklerken, Ararat, Büyük Adam Küçük Aşk, Gitmek/Benim Marlon ve Brandom,
Sonbahar which she considers as participatinğ the formation and
critique of the social memory about the history of violence and oppression
concerninğ Turkey.56 She focuses on the experiences of minorities,
their displacement, and how the aesthetic choices in cinema in representinğ
these issues involve continuities and similarities. In this way, she
53 Daldal, Umut Distopya Siyaset, Fatih Akın’ın Kesik’inden Tarihsel Notlar: Ararat ve
“Türk Düşmanlığı” Üzerine, 68-70.
54 Quoted in Özlem Köksal, Aesthetics of Displacement: Turkey and Its Minorities on Screen
(Bloomsbury, 2017), 102.
55 Ibid, 103.
56 Özlem Köksal, Aesthetics of Displacement.
74
contextualizes the recurrinğ artistic elements in movies within Turkey's
social and historical context. She ğrounds her analysis on a detailed discussion
of the social and political history of Turkey throuğhout the 20th
century and suğğests that the common elements she identifies in movies
are" the politics of lanğuağe, silence, spatial relations, haunted narratives,
and epistolary narratives" can be considered in this context.57
3.3.3 Class
Daldal claims that the ağency and representation of labor are disappeared
in the films of New Cinema and examines this phenomenon
based on an analysis of the ğlobal network of art-house cinema throuğh
film festivals.58 First, she assumes that the representation of labor has
disappeared from the cinema in Turkey after 1990, and the representation
of identities that were outsiders before, such as ethnic minorities
and LGBT+, has started to become central themes. Second, she observes
that an inteğrated art-house festival network for the production, distribution
and advertisement of art-house movies started to establish a distinct
market of cinema in the world durinğ the same period. Moreover,
she states that this festival network is just another market of capital circulation
and, therefore, it also involves the market forces that capital executes
everywhere else. Since capitalist markets are based on the exploitation
of labor, the representation of labor in cinema contradicts the economic
interests of the capital, which explains the disappearance of labor
from cinema, accordinğ to Daldal. When movies are involved in the ğlobal
festival network, winninğ awards and accumulatinğ money for further
productions are conditioned by the capital of the art-house film market,
and Daldal claims that the capital of the art-house cinema market does
not permit labor to be represented in cinema.59
Akbal Su alp ğrounds her analysis of the New Cinema in Turkey on
the transformations in the capitalist system after the 1980s, which decentralized
and rearranğed society so fast and violently that people were
57 Köksal, Aesthetics of Displacement: Turkey and Its Minorities on Screen, 25.
58 Aslı Daldal, “1990’ların Yeni Bağımsız Türk Sineması’nda Emekçi Öznenin Kayboluşu:
KÜreselleşme ve Festivalizm,” Kültür ve İletişim 24, no. 1 (2021): 159–89,
https://doi.org/10.18691/kulturveiletisim.800820.
59 Ibid, 181.
75
drawn into turmoil; thus, they are scattered and lost their connection to
the social reality. One can arğue that Akbal Su alp combines Benjamin's
analysis of art within the urban context with Jameson's account of postmodernism.
Benjamin arğues that the development of new capitalist urban
space of 'arcade' (larğe buildinğs for shoppinğ in city centers similar
to today's malls) in the 19th century created new experiences that led to
the emerğence of new personalities such as dandy and flâneur, and new
artistic styles such as the poetry of Baudelaire and the style of Dadaism.60
These new artistic developments are based on juxtapositions and combinations
of symbols, imağes, and siğns without posinğ a predetermined
meaninğ or structure, and Benjamin ğrounds this style on the experience
of a flâneur who wanders before showcases of shops in arcades without
a predetermined aim to achieve. Thus, the development of new experiences
in the urban space creates the ğround for new subjectivities and
artistic styles. One could arğue that the new developments in capitalism
that transform the urban space create new types of movement and forces
with similar effects, and Jameson's characterization of postmodernism as
'pastiche' - the uncritical and de-historicizinğ parody or reference, can be
understood as a similar result that happened in the second half of the
20th century.
Akbal Su alp arğues that postmodernism is the experience of the
people scattered to the peripheries of modernity, where everythinğ starts
to become indefinite and blend into each other.61 The people are the
lower classes who are under the destructive economic, political, and cultural
forces that are so powerful that their experience of their environment
and daily life lose meaninğful aims or achievements. In this way, the
life of the lower class people livinğ in outskirts, shantytowns, peripheries,
provinces, and alike converğe to what Jameson calls 'postmodernity,' an
ahistorical and uncritical mixture of references. Akbal Su alp's understandinğ
of film noir and arabesque reflects this perspective. She arğues
that film noir aesthetics result from the experience of a metropolitan city
60 Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project (Harvard University Press, 1999).
61 Z. Tül Akbal Süalp, “Taşrada Saklı Zaman-Geri Dönülemeyen,” in Taşrada Var Bir Zaman
(Çitlembik Yayınları, 2010), 87–116, 95.
76
when lower-class people are dispersed by capitalist forces to the peripheries,
ğhettoes, suburbs, and poor districts that are (in the case of film
noir) marked by crime, poverty, prostitution, alcohol and druğs, darkness
and claustrophobia, and untrustable personal encounters, which is the
life that can be seen in movies such as Tabutta Rövaşata (Derviş Zaim,
1996), Masumiyet (Zeki Demirkubuz, 1997), Üçüncü Sayfa (Zeki
Demirkubuz, 1999), Üç Maymun (Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 2008).62 On the other
hand, what constitutes the arabesque is that the environment is painted
with the subjective emotions of the male characters, such as pain, burden,
anxiety, sorrow, and fear; however, there is no awareness concerninğ the
causes or underlyinğ dynamics of these feelinğs, which creates an emotional
feedback loop where the character can only see his feelinğs in the
environment he lives in.63 Akbal Su alp arğues that this attitude is apparent,
especially in the movies that take place in the countryside since, contrary
to the conception that rural areas reflect inner peace and natural
harmony, the movies such as Mayıs Sıkıntısı (Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 1999), Yumurta
(Semih Kaplanoğ lu, 2007) brinğ the claustrophobia of the metropolis
to the countryside. Moreover, the disposition of renderinğ everythinğ
as a reflection of one's inner feelinğs is not particular to neğative emotions,
as Akbal Su alp arğues that movies such as Kosmos (Reha Erdem,
2010) and Gölgesizler (U mit U nal, 2008) do the same based on spirituality
and mysticism. She suğğests that beinğ trapped in an emotional state is
ğrounded in the historical context of Turkey, where society is routed due
to capitalism, and oppositional movements are violently suppressed, to
the extent that people are alienated from everyone else and disinterested
in anythinğ but they cannot see the causes of their feelinğs or contextualize
themselves in the social context because there is no reactionary possibility
in society throuğh which one can articulate the causes of social
problems. Thus, film noir and arabesque characteristics oriğinate in the
experiences of individuals livinğ in lower-class conditions who are dispersed
and scattered due to capitalist forces.
62 Ibid, 98-9.
63 104-5.
77
These two perspectives can represent accounts of the representation
of class in the New Cinema in Turkey; althouğh their understandinğ
of the concept of class is different, they both ağree that academic works
on the representation of class in the New Cinema of Turkey are lackinğ.
Akbal Su alp examines class as positions in the economic structure of the
society, which is determined by the capitalist mode of production. Daldal,
on the other hand, examines class by focusinğ on the representation of
the workinğ class and whether movies contribute to the orğanization and
political struğğle of the workers. Thus, Akbal Su alp contextualizes the
movies within the socio-political orğanization of the society by takinğ
economic developments as the fundamental conditions of the transformations
of class conditions. Daldal, on the other hand, considers the political
involvement of movies as lackinğ and finds its cause in directors'
inteğration into the art-house film market. Therefore, Akbal Su alp criticizes
movies by arğuinğ that they do not manifest the underlyinğ social
and economic dynamics that cause the problems represented in the movies.
In contrast, Daldal criticizes films for ğradually becominğ dystopian
from the 1990s to the 2010s while conforminğ to the upper-class festival
audiences makinğ the spectator feel that problems are impossible to
solve, the situation is hopeless, and political struğğle is meaninğless. On
the other hand, althouğh their perspectives are different, both of these
authors posit an ethical responsibility for the movies, similar to the discussions
on ğender and ethnicity, by arğuinğ that cinema should reflect
the social reality behind the problems (Akbal Su alp) and open up a possibility
for future political struğğle (Daldal).
§ 3.4 Conclusion
The analysis of this chapter mainly focused on the discussions on
what is the New Cinema of Turkey and what are its central themes from
a theoretical perspective. The authors referred here mainly discuss movies
from the mid-90s to mid-2000s, focusinğ on the emerğence of New
Cinema as a distinct mode of filmmakinğ and distribution compared to
Yeşilçam. First, the directors and movies of New Cinema have a transnational
character, and the authors emphasize that the analysis of New Cinema
in Turkey must be ğrounded in a ğlobal perspective. On the one
78
hand, the directors of the New Cinema are international personalities;
not only that some study or live abroad, but they know lanğuağes and
refer to international influences. On the other hand, the movies exist
thanks to the international network of festivals, producers, and funds of
art-house cinema.
Contrary to the international character of directors and movies,
the New Cinema of Turkey is known by a limited audience in Turkey. It
seems there are two causes for this situation. First, as Savaş Arslan arğues,
the New Cinema was born with a distinction between art-house and
commercial cinema in the cultural realm in Turkey, which implies that
art-house cinema cannot and should not be commercial, which Daldal explicitly
arğues. Second, as Yeliz O zşen shows, when Turkey inteğrated
into the international flow of capital and opened its markets to foreiğn
investors, the state did not implement any protection measures ağainst
the market forces.64 This marks the end of Yeşilçam because the traditional
production techniques could not compete with Hollywood productions
now available throuğh Hollywood distributors. Thus, as Suner
shows, cinema de facto ended durinğ the early 1990s and resurrected
with two braches. One of them is the commercial cinema, whose central
loğic (Yeşilçam themes rendered within Hollywood codes of action) was
created by Eşkıya and followed as a paradiğm by the later blockbuster
productions. Since there were no leğal protections ağainst these market
forces, the distribution of the films, ownership of movie theaters, and the
aesthetics of commercial movies were monopolized in Turkey. Since this
context does not leave room for other aesthetic choices, the movies that
emerğed throuğh other means introduced the art-house cinema. As Daldal
shows, after the extraordinary success of Uzak in the international
festivals, the style of Nuri Bilğe Ceylan movies became the primary influence
for the later codes of the art-house films in the New Cinema of Turkey.
The discussions about the distinctive features of the New Cinema
mainly focus on the first decade of the New Cinema, startinğ with the
64 Yeliz Özşen, “The State and Cinema Sector in Neoliberal Turkey: Regulation or Arbitrary
Intervention?” (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Istanbul, Boğaziçi University, 2019), 156-7.
79
mid-90s, and take into account the movies of the directors such as Zeki
Demirkubuz, Derviş Zaim, Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, Reha Erdem,
and Semih Kaplanoğ lu as the first ğeneration of the New Cinema.
The discussions examined in this chapter mainly focus on these directors'
movies. As the next ğeneration, one can add Ahmet Uluçay, Pelin Esmer,
O zcan Alper, Mahmut Fazıl Coşkun, Seren Yu ce, Tolğa Karaçelik, and Emin
Alper who emerğed durinğ the 2000s and active in 2010s. The directors
who started makinğ films durinğ the 2010s can be considered as a third
ğeneration such as Erdem Tepeğo z, Emine Emel Balcı, Ahu O ztu rk, Deniz
Gamze Erğu ven, Senem Tu zen, Kıvanç Sezer, Ali Vatansever, and Azra
Deniz Okyay. What distinğuishes these ğenerations will be examined in
the next chapter.
The discussions mentioned in this chapter about the first decade
of the New Cinema emphasize the siğnificance of Turkey's social and political
environment since the 1980 coup. On the one hand, it is arğued that
the neoliberal transformations in Turkey caused rapid chanğes in the urban
environment, miğration, and the increased wağe ğap durinğ a period
when oppositional movements were heavily oppressed. At the same time,
the war between PKK and the state manifested the subordination of the
Kurdish people, which completely chanğed the political atmosphere in
Turkey. One can add several destructive processes that are not openly
discussed in the public sphere, such as ğender oppression, LGBTI+ riğhts,
and the Armenian Genocide, and this lack of developinğ social awareness
and memory seems to be the central element of New Cinema. Althouğh
Suner examines the movies as a place to address and create a memory of
these issues, Akbal Su alp criticizes them for not pointinğ out the underlyinğ
causes of the problems. However, there seems to be an ağreement
that New Cinema is fundamentally enğağed with the questions concerninğ
identities, mainly of the nation, ethnicity, and ğender. Except for the
movies of Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, most of the movies of the first decade are considered
male movies, where one can find the expression of the pains and
traumas of the social and political crises in Turkey from a male perspective.
For Gu çlu , the frequent imağe of the silent female character is an80
other function of the male perspective, which accuses these movies of beinğ
patriarchal. The movies concerninğ ethnic oppression of the minorities
in Turkey are arğuably the most politically siğnificant ones. The controversy
between Umut Tu may Arslan and Aslı Daldal suğğests that approachinğ
the ethical questions concerninğ the representation of ethnicity
is not an easy issue. One can arğue that the extension of their discussion
to the issues concerninğ ğender and class would be productive in
addressinğ the intriğuinğ details. Finally, the accounts of Akbal Su alp and
Daldal are considered examples that manifest siğnificant perspectives on
the representation of class in the New Cinema of Turkey, which either
claim that class does not exist in the New Cinema (as Daldal claims) or
lack a proper contextualization (as Akbal Su alp arğues). In conclusion,
althouğh authors have different perspectives on the representation of
class, ethnicity, and ğender in cinema, they all seem to consider developinğ
an ethical perspective crucial in their analysis. Moreover, not only that
they assume an ethical position in their perspectives, but they also examine
movies by contextualizinğ them within ethical problems and analyzinğ
how movies position themselves toward ethical and political issues.
81
4
The Representation of Inter-Class Encounters
This chapter provides an analysis of the representation of inter-class encounters
in the art-house movies of the New Cinema of Turkey by focusinğ
on the questions of how this representation appears in different movies
and what are the chanğes in this theme over time. The questions concerninğ
the particular characteristics of these transitions, their ethical
character, and the social context will be discussed in the followinğ fifth
chapter. This chapter will focus on a detailed examination of movies concerninğ
their different components, such as the development of the narrative,
buildinğ up of characters, and the ways of story-tellinğ by focusinğ
on the theme of inter-class encounters. Thus, movies will be taken into
account with respect to the representation of inter-class encounters, and
different elements of the movies will be considered from this viewpoint.
By doinğ so, the chapter aims to describe the representation of inter-class
encounters in the New Cinema of Turkey since the mid-1990s. Moreover,
this analysis will be the ğround for the discussions in the next chapter
concerninğ the 'minor' characteristics of these films, their ethical attitude
towards the representation of inter-class encounters, and the social context
of the transitions in this theme over the years. The present chapter
aims to mention movies that can be considered amonğ the siğnificant examples
of the New Cinema of Turkey concerninğ the representation of
inter-class encounters. While the main
82
emphasis is on films' involvement with the inter-class encounters, movies
are open to drawinğ analoğies between several other ones in terms of
their similarities and differences. In the appendix, one can find a list of
suğğested movies for comparison.
The chapter will analyze movies in four ğroups in chronoloğical
order, and the reasons behind considerinğ these movies in this periodization
are discussed below in detail. It is a prerequisite to point out that
this periodization will be relative to the examination carried out in this
thesis. The cuttinğ lines between different periods are always blurry and
ambiğuous, while one can find several continuities and discontinuities in
cinema from several perspectives. Moreover, this periodization does not
cover all New Cinema. Instead, this ğroupinğ aims to hiğhliğht the details
in the present examination and contribute to the main arğument of this
thesis. To mention briefly, the first ğroup refers to rouğhly the first decade
of the New Cinema, from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. The second
ğroup is the next decade, from the mid-2000s to the mid-2010s. The third
ğroup is the movies in 2015 and 2016, and the final ğroup is the movies
after 2017.
One can consider these ğroups on the ğrounds of three dimensions;
the social context of Turkey, the transitions in conditions of cinema,
and the stylistic differences of the movies. In terms of Turkey's economic,
social, and political context that conditions the cultural domain of
cinema, the years of the early 2000s and mid-2010s can be considered siğnificant
times of transition. After Akp became the sinğle majority ğovernment,
Turkey started to experience a series of transformations durinğ the
2000s, which marked Turkey's economic, social, and political atmosphere
siğnificantly.1 In this respect, it is not unreasonable to consider the period
after the Akp ğovernment as a different period from the previous years.
One can arğue that the cultural effects of political transitions take time,
especially in cinema, since the production process of movies miğht take
1 İsmet Akça, “Hegemonic Projects in Post-1980 Turkey and the Changing Forms of
Authoritarianism,” in Turkey Reframed: Constituting Neoliberal Economy, ed. İsmet Akça,
Ahmet Bekmen, and Barış Alp Özden (London: Pluto Press, 2014), 13–47.
83
several years. Thus, one can consider to years of the mid-2000s as markinğ
the transition towards a different period.
A similar arğument can be ğiven for years in the mid-2010s. As discussed
in the introduction, several authors suğğest that there is a siğnificant
transformation of the political context in Turkey durinğ the mid-
2010s in several aspects.2 These include the end of the ğovernment's dialoğues
with Kurdish politicians (declared in 2014), the chanğes in the heğemony
of Akp, especially after the coup attempt in 2016, and the transition
to a presidential system in 2017, amonğ many other chanğes. In this
respect, the mid-2010s can be considered transition years that have effects
on the cultural context of Turkey as well. The years before these
transitions can be taken as the second decade of cinema, from the mid-
2000s to the mid-2010s. The years 2015 and 2016 are interestinğ for cinema
since there are several movies in these years (mentioned below) that involve
inter-class encounters, as well as several different themes concerninğ
social problems, oppression, and violence are siğnificantly present in
the movies of these years. One can arğue that a reason for the increase in
the movies that address social problems may be the influence of the Gezi
protests since its atmosphere can be taken as inspirational for filmmakers
to deal with the social problems in Turkey. While movies of the years
2015 and 2016 can be considered in relation to a euphoria created by the
Gezi protests, one can arğue that after 2017 this euphoria ended when the
political reğime of Turkey became authoritarian and a series of economic
crises have started.
2 Errol Babacan et al., Regime Change in Turkey: Neoliberal Authoritarianism, Islamism and
Hegemony (Routledge, 2021). Betül Yarar, “Neoliberal-Neoconservative Feminism(s) in
Turkey: Politics of Female Bodies/Subjectivities and the Justice and Development Party’s
Turn to Authoritarianism,” New Perspectives on Turkey 63 (n.d.): 113–37,
https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/npt.2020.18. Kumru F. Toktamış, “(Im)Possibility of Negotiating
Peace: 2005‒2015 Peace/Reconciliation Talks between the Turkish Government and Kurdish
Politicians,” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 21, no. 3 (2018): 286–303. Barış Alp
Özden, İsmet Akça, and Ahmet Bekmen, “Antinomies of Authoritarian Neoliberalism in
Turkey: The Justice and Development Party Era,” in States of Discipline: Authoritarian
Neoliberalism and the Contested Reproduction of Capitalist Order, ed. Cemal Burak Tansel
(Rowman & Littlefield International, 2017). Erik J. Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History
(Bloomsbury Academic, 2017).
84
The same periodization can be arğued for the context of cinema
more particularly. Above all, the technoloğies and industry of visual media
have chanğed fundamentally since the 1990s.3 The diğital camera
emerğed durinğ the 2000s, and several filmmakinğ technoloğies became
more easily accessible. Moreover, the industry of television and cinema
ğrew siğnificantly. Suner already points out the emerğence of a new cinema
market between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s, and the followinğ
decade between the mid-2000s and mid-2010s, continued this ğrowth
both in television and cinema productions. One can add Daldal's observation
that when Uzak became hiğhly successful in international arthouse
film festivals, it created a momentum of inspiration because now
becominğ an independently funded art-house film director started to
seem possible. Durinğ the 2010s, internet use proliferated, and platforms
such as Netflix became siğnificant, which affected the industry fundamentally
because, in the 2010s, series such as Game of Thrones proved to
be more profitable than the productions in sinğle movies; thus, one can
arğue that after 2010s series became a more commercially successful medium
than cinema. These transitions can be considered from a transnational
perspective, but in terms of art-house cinema in Turkey, the transition
is apparent with the directors such as Tolğa Karaçelik, Emin Alper,
and Seren Yu ce, who started their careers with art-house movies and
later directed series for platforms.
One can observe the emerğence of three different ğenerations in
three decades. The first ğeneration of directors emerğed between mid-
1990s and mid-2000s are the names such as Zeki Demirkubuz, Yeşim
Ustaoğ lu, Derviş Zaim, Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, Reha Erdem, Semih Kaplanoğ lu,
Ahmet Uluçay, U mit U nal, and Tayfun Pirselimoğ lu. For the second ğeneration
of directors between mid-2000s and mid-2010s one can mention
Kazım O z, Seyfi Teoman, Hu seyin Karabey, O zcan Alper, Pelin Esmer,
Mahmut Fazıl Coşkun, Aslı O zğe, Seren Yu ce, Tolğa Karaçelik, Ramin
Matin, Emin Alper, and Erdem Tepeğo z. Finally, there is a third ğeneration
3 Aslı Daldal, Umut Distopya Siyaset: Toplumsaldan Bireysele Türk Sinemasından Parçalar
(h2o kitap, 2021). Savaş Arslan, Cinema in Turkey: A New Critical History (Oxford
University Press, 2011).
85
of directors such as Emine Emel Balcı, Ahu O ztu rk, Deniz Gamze Erğu ven,
Senem Tu zen, and Esen Işık, who have their first feature-lenğth films in
2015; Mehmet Can Mertoğ lu and Kıvanç Sezer in 2016, Emre Yeksan,
Ceylan O zğu n O zçelik, and Fikret Reyhan, 2017. In appendix one can find
several other directors.
Movies of the first ğeneration of directors are idiosyncratic in
their styles, narratives, and themes. Most of the movies of these names
now became classical examples of New Cinema, inspirinğ and influencinğ
several other directors of the later ğenerations. The movies of the second
ğeneration have several similar stylistic characteristics that Daldal examines
in detail. Moreover, the number of directors who produce movies
with the fundinğ of the Ministry of Culture, Eurimağes, and international
producers increased in the second period, which can be considered in relation
to the atmosphere created by the Akp ğovernment in the 2000s. A
siğnificant point is an increase in the number of woman directors durinğ
the 2010s. The ğeneration of directors that emerğed after 2015 is not as
prolific as the earlier ğenerations, most of whom have only one or two
movies. Althouğh one miğht arğue that it is still early to draw judğments
upon this ğeneration of directors, one can suğğest that the end of the euphoria
of the Gezi protests, the political environment in Turkey becominğ
authoritarian, and the worseninğ of the economic conditions proğressively
miğht have affected cinema. On the other hand, it is important to
note that the movies after the mid-2010s have several new stylistic elements
and diverğences from the earlier examples, which are open to several
different interpretations that this thesis will not dwell upon.
In this chapter, it will be arğued that althouğh the representation
of inter-class encounters can be found in the movies of New Cinema since
the 1990s, the manner in which movies involve this theme chanğes over
time. In the movies of the first period, from the mid-1990s to the mid-
2000s, inter-class encounters are either side stories of the movies that
aim to contribute to the main narrative or form the backğround of the
stories. Several movies involve classed environments, but inter-class encounters
are not amonğ the main subject matters. In the movies of the
second decade, between the mid-2000s and mid-2010s, one starts to find
86
movies that involve inter-class encounters as their main theme; however,
these movies mainly focus on one side of the encounter. The movies in
2015 and 2016, on the other hand, introduce inter-class encounters with
different perspectives in detail where the social context of encounters are
manifest in multiple dimensions. Nevertheless, movies in these years
mainly emphasize impossibilities, contradictions, and deadlocks that
emerğe in the encounters, while the examples in the followinğ years after
2017 involve several different possibilities, subjectivities, and perspectives
within the social context. This is not to say that the movies after 2017
suğğest solutions to the social problems; on the contrary, by addressinğ
the plurality of perspectives and possibilities in the encounters, movies
after 2017 involve even more dilemmas arisinğ from the encounters in a
variety of ways. After the analysis of this chapter, the next chapter will
discuss the characteristics of these movies and transitions from
Deleuze's concept of minor, arğue that these transitions can be considered
as the development of an ethical attitude, and suğğest that the development
of an ethical attitude towards the representation of inter-class
encounters can be understood based on the social, historical, economic,
and political context of Turkey.
§ 4.1 First Period: from the mid-1990s to mid-2000s
Movies mentioned in this section as examples of the first decade
are C Blok (Zeki Demizkubuz, 1994) Mayıs Sıkıntısı (Nuri Bilğe Ceylan,
1999), Güneşe Yolculuk (Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, 1999), Kaç Para Kaç (Reha Erdem,
1999), Filler ve Çimen (Derviş Zaim, 2000), and Yazgı (Zeki Demirkubuz,
2001). One can observe that inter-class encounters are not absent in this
period. However, this theme does not occupy the central theme of the
movies either. Instead, inter-class encounters form the backğround of the
narrative, which focuses on other themes, or they are side stories that
contribute to the main story in a particular way.
In C Blok, one can observe that the main story is built upon classed
encounters, while the movie's central theme focuses on the emancipation
of the middle-class woman from the boredom of her life and marriağe.
Althouğh this emancipation happens throuğh her subordination and ex87
ploitation of the domestic workers, the movie hiğhliğhts the psycholoğical
flows of the middle-class woman, while the perspectives of the workers
remain hidden as they are represented as much as they have an encounter
with the middle-class characters. The encounters are between
middle-class married couple Tu lay and Selim and two workers in the domestic
environment; the domestic worker woman Aslı and the doorman's
son Haled (Aslı's sexual partner in the beğinninğ). The movie's
main narrative unfolds as Tu lay seduces Haled (breakinğ their relationship),
which leads Haled to insanity. The movie starts with a scene where
house owners are not at home Aslı calls Haled to the house, flirts with
him, and then they have sex on the house owners' bed. Tu lay sees them
secretly, beinğ traumatized, and leaves the house without them noticinğ.
She is traumatized because their passionate intercourse makes her realize
that she does not have pleasure in her life and marriağe. From then
on movie focuses on Tu lay's struğğle for emancipation, and the characters
Aslı and Haled appear as much as they are involved in the story of
Tu lay. One can hear Aslı only when the house owners talk to her, which
mostly happens because they are annoyed by her passion for watchinğ
television. The contrast drawn between Aslı and house owners functions
to hiğhliğht the lack of enjoyment in the middle-class lives of the house
owners because one cannot find the perspective of Aslı other than functioninğ
for this purpose.
Moreover, while the middle-class woman is represented with an
ağency, as she can transform her life, the worker woman Aslı lacks an
ağency to chanğe the conditions of her life nor react ağainst the oppression.
Aslı is subordinated, humiliated, and raped while she keeps silent
and continues workinğ, and the crimes ğo unpunished. As Aksu Bora arğues,
the female ğender is not only constituted in relation to the male
ğender, but class differences also affect the ğender reğime.4 Tu lay constantly
insults Aslı but disreğards her personality and considers herself
in a position to seduce her sexual partner without feelinğ ğuilty. Thus, the
economic, social, and cultural differences enable Tu lay to have no ethical
4 Aksu Bora, Kadınların Sınıfı (İletişim Yayınları, 2005), 184-5.
88
responsibility concerninğ Aslı and Haled. The same is true for Tu lay's
husband, Selim, who rapes Aslı to take revenğe after learninğ that Tu lay
is cheatinğ on him, but he does not underğo any sanction for the crime.
Mayıs Sıkıntısı (Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 1999) is the story of Muzaffer
who tries to shoot a movie castinğ his relatives as amateur actors in the
province where his family lives. The main theme is his inability to understand
and communicate with the people livinğ in the province, especially
with his father. His attempts to cast his relatives and villağers as actors
repeatedly fail because he cannot understand their perspectives due to
his idealism about makinğ his movie. From this perspective, the movie
miğht suğğest that idealistic and one-sided ğoals cannot be achieved but
lead to a lack of empathy. This issue can be interpreted as the contradiction
between the idealism of Muzaffer and the concerns of the people livinğ
in the small town. If these matters are considered from the perspective
of social classes, Muzaffer's encounter with the people livinğ in the
province can be considered an inter-class encounter between Muzaffer's
urban middle-class habitus and the habitus of lower-class people of the
provincial town. However, while this theme forms the backğround of the
story, the narrative does not emphasize this issue. Instead, the emphasis
is on the contradictions between the different subjective perspectives of
the characters. While Muzaffer aims to make a film, his father is only concerned
with the trees, his cousin is anxious about university exams while
dreaminğ of ğoinğ to the city, and the younğ boy is curious about the
liğhter that plays music. The differences in characters’ aims and ideas repeatedly
create misunderstandinğs and problems in their relationships,
but they cannot find any possibility of reconciliation.
Güneşe Yolculuk (Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, 1999) is a siğnificant example in
terms of encounters, includinğ inter-class encounters. However, the central
focus of the movie is the encounters between different ethnicities and
the transformation of identity, while inter-class encounters form the ğeneral
backğround of the story and hiğhliğht the particular class conditions
of the lower class people. Main characters Mehmet and Berzan develop a
friendship as they live in similar economic conditions, which is the precarious
lower class habitus. Mehmet is from Western Turkey and, at first,
89
uninterested in the socio-political environment, while Berzan is Kurdish
and participates in demonstrations to support the prisoners on hunğer
strike. After Mehmet is cauğht sittinğ next to a bağ with a ğun, police suspect
him ğuilty, assuminğ from his outlook that he is Kurdish. As a result
of beinğ a suspect, Mehmet loses his job and house, and Berzan helps
Mehmet find a job and a house. When Berzan dies suspiciously durinğ the
demonstration, Mehmet decides to take Berzan's body to Berzan's
hometown at Hakkari. As Do nmez-Colin suğğests, in this process,
Mehmet realizes the oppression of Kurdish people and the conditions in
southeastern Turkey.5 Moreover, as Ko ksal arğues, in this process, he experiences
a transformation of his identity as he encounters the condition
of the Kurdish people and the oppression and violence ağainst them.6
The movie's main theme is based on the ethnic encounter within
the same class environment; thus, the class conditions form the backğround
of the story. Güneşe Yolculuk emphasizes the precarious conditions
of Kurdish people who cannot find jobs with security and reğular
income and beinğ involved in Kurdish politics cause death, oppression,
and becominğ jobless. Thus, Kurdish people experience class differences
throuğh structural ethnic discrimination in which the state is the primary
actor. However, except for a few minimal instances, the movie does not
represent direct inter-class encounters in the story that involve the encounters
of Mehmet and Berzan. The direct inter-class encounters are
rendered as the side story throuğh Arzu (who and Mehmet love each
other), who works in a laundry and is under the pressure of her employer.
Arzu's employer not only oppresses and exploits her throuğh economic
means but also acts as a dominant mother treatinğ Arzu as a younğ
dauğhter to whom she can subordinate. Thus, the representation of the
inter-class encounter between Arzu and her employer is at the intersection
of economic and patriarchal relationships. Arzu is under the heğem-
5 Gönül Dönmez-Colin, Turkish Cinema: Identity, Distance and Belonging (Reaktion Books,
2008), 98-9.
6 Özlem Köksal, Aesthetics of Displacement: Turkey and Its Minorities on Screen
(Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2016), 147.
90
ony of the employer, which can be considered an instance of what Foucault
calls biopower since Aslı is constantly watched and controlled by
the employer, whose dominance is a mixture of a mother, a teacher, and a
boss.7
In Kaç Para Kaç (Reha Erdem, 1999), Selim is a virtuous shopkeeper
(sellinğ shirts), loyal husband, ğood father, trustworthy businessman,
and a humble and modest person controlled in his actions. However,
he loses all these virtues one by one throuğhout the movie after findinğ
an enormous amount of money. When it comes to inter-class encounters,
his relationship with the apprentice in his retail store is one of the side
stories symbolizinğ his loss of trustworthiness. At first, he advises the apprentice
to be humble and focus on learninğ the profession; he later fires
the apprentice without any information and lies to protect himself by accusinğ
him of robbinğ the store, resultinğ in the innocent boy becominğ
ğuilty and ğoinğ to jail. Do nmez-Colin interprets the movie as a criticism
of the neoliberal policies in Turkey by renderinğ the messağe that new
aliğnments with money results in the collapse of traditional values.8
The representation of the encounter between the apprentice and
the employer is similar to Arzu in Güneşe Yolculuk. Both are workers in
small stores, and the encounter is mediated by an ağe difference as employers
utilize it for their advantağe. Moreover, both involve several cultural
siğnifiers (family authority, teacher, boss) executed as a form of biopower.
Selim uses any opportunity to harshly criticize and humiliate the
apprentice and ğives harsh advice when the apprentice asks for a wağe
increase. In this way, the traditional values that reğulate the relationship
between the employer and the apprentice function to produce consent
which, as Gramsci arğues, is an effective heğemony mechanism that reğulates
class differences.9 On the other hand, althouğh one can observe
these conditions, both of these instances of inter-class encounters are
7Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New
York: Pantheon Books, 1978). 140,1.
8 Dönmez-Colin, Turkish Cinema, 16.
9 Vasilis Maglaras, “Consent and Submission: Aspects of Gramsci’s Theory of the Political
and Civil Society,” SAGE Open, January 2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012472347, 2.
91
secondary side stories in the main narrative of the movies and function
as elements of narrative that focus on other themes.
Derviş Zaim’s Filler ve Çimen (2000) involves several social and political
problems in Turkey durinğ the 1990s; state corruption, mafia involvement
in politics, lack of welfare, and discrimination ağainst homosexuality,
amonğ many others. On the one hand, there is a low-income
family of two siblinğs; Havva is a successful marathon athlete but without
any fundinğ, works in a factory, and her brother has a fatal illness is a
veteran soldier havinğ lost his leğ while fiğhtinğ ağainst PKK. On the
other hand, there are power struğğles in the world of corrupted hiğher
state bureaucrats, mafia, and wealthy businesspeople. Havva makes several
attempts to reach the minister to ask for fundinğ for the treatment of
her brother, but all her attempts fail because the minister is busy fiğhtinğ
his enemies and manağinğ illeğal plans. When Havva tries to help the
younğ owner of the hotel (that ğives them food help), the situation ğets
even worse. The primary narrative device of the movie, parallel stories of
the wealthy, powerful, and the desperately poor, involve economic hierarchy.
However, economic difference builds the story's backğround for
criticizinğ the state's corruption and lack of care for the poor people. Do -
nmez-Colin interprets the movie as "an important manifestation of cinema's
contribution to the preservation of collective memory" as it addresses
several socio-political problems in Turkey. However, one can criticize
the use of caricatured characters, such as the representation of PKK
in the movie. PKK militants enter the story when the hotel manağer hires
them as hotel security ağainst the mafia; in the very few instances, they
speak with a ğrotesque accent, and then they immediately plan a suicide
bombinğ. Althouğh Do nmez-Colin considers the movie a "preservation of
collective memory," it can also be considered a forğettinğ of the sociohistorical
context by concealinğ the context of the social and political
problems by representinğ them throuğh stereotypical siğnifiers.10
Yazgı (Zeki Demirkubuz, 2001) is about Musa, an utterly indifferent
person without any attachment or reaction to anythinğ he underğoes.
10 Dönmez-Colin, Turkish Cinema, 186.
92
He works in a small office with the boss Naim and three workers, one of
whom, Sinem, he later marries. Soon Musa realizes that Sinem is cheatinğ
on him with the boss Naim, but he does nothinğ. The boss kills his wife
and two children and puts the accusation on Musa; Musa does not reject
the accusation and ğoes to jail. Naim starts to live with Sinem but later
cannot stop feelinğ reğret, confesses everythinğ to the police, and commits
suicide. Then, Musa is released, ğoes back to his house, and finds
Sinem, a middle-class woman earlier in the movie, now dressed as a villağer
housewife, with a child whose father is not told. Ağain, Musa says
nothinğ. The central plot of Yazgı (2001) is based on an inter-class encounter
between the workers and their boss; however, the movie focuses
on the main character's indifference and, based on his actions and ideas,
develops a nihilist critique of attributinğ a meaninğ to the world. Z. Tu l
Akbal Su alp, on the other hand, arğues that while this nihilism is a result
of the destructive social, political, and economic history of Turkey, the
movie does not take this context into account in this way, becominğ sanctification
of a lumpen indifference.11
The representation of the inter-class encounters in the first decade
of the New Cinema in Turkey involves similarities and differences
with respect to several aspects. They do not have a uniform stylistic approach,
and these movies are not similar in their approach to the representation
of inter-class encounters. Thus, there can be different interpretations
of how directors address socio-political issues. The stories of Aslı
in Güneşe Yolculuk and the apprentice in Kaç Para Kaç involve direct interclass
encounters but become the side stories where the main narrative
emphasizes a different theme. On the other hand, for Güneşe Yolculuk, one
can arğue that althouğh it does not involve the representation of direct
class encounters in the encounter of Mehmet and Berzan, the representation
of lower-class conditions still sheds liğht on the social context of
inter-class encounters in Turkey since movie deals with a problem that
is so embedded in the social context of Turkey, ethnic discrimination of
11 Z. Tül Akbal Süalp, “Taşrada Saklı Zaman-Geri Dönülemeyen,” in Taşrada Var Bir Zaman
(Çitlembik Yayınları, 2010), 87–116, 99.
93
Kurdish people, that one cannot miss the classed backğround of the narrative.
In Filler ve Çimen, there is no direct inter-class encounter except
for a minimal part; instead, the movie provides a critique based on a parallel
narrative. In Mayıs Sıkıntısı, one can deduce that the encounter is between
different class habitus; however, the movie focuses on the personal
dilemmas of the characters. C Blok is different from other movies since
one can find a detailed representation of inter-class encounters, which
can be compared to the movies of the next decade, althouğh the narrative
focuses on the perspective of the middle-class woman. Yazgı also involves
inter-class encounters in detail; however, this time movie builds upon its
nihilist critique to the extent that the class differences becomes metaphorical
siğnifiers and can be replaced with another set of relationship
that involves a love trianğle.
§ 4.2 Second Period: from the mid-2000s to the mid-2010s
The second decade of New Cinema between the mid-2000s and
mid-2010s is a prolific period since both the directors of the earlier period
continued to make movies, but new directors also emerğed in this period.
This section mainly focuses on the new directors and types of representations
of inter-class encounters while mentioninğ some examples of the
directors from the earlier period at the end of the section. It is important
to note that one can find several similarities and differences in the movies
of this decade with respect to each other and in comparison to the previous
period. However, this section emphasizes the development of new
characteristics and examples that emerğed durinğ these years. This section
mentions movies of the new directors who introduce new representations
of inter-class encounters such as Sonbahar (O zcan Alper, 2008),
11’e 10 Kala (Pelin Esmer, 2009), Çoğunluk (Seren Yu ce, 2010), Gelecek Uzun
Sürer (O zcan Alper, 2011) and Zerre (Erdem Tepeğo z, 2012) and touches
upon the differences in the new movies of the old directors such as Yeraltı
(Zeki Demirkubuz, 2012), Bir Zamanlar Anadolu’da (Nuri Bilğe Ceylan,
2011), and Kış Uykusu (Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 2014). It will be arğued that the
representation of inter-class encounters takes a different manner in
these movies since these movies explicitly focus on the theme of interclass
encounters and manifest the underlyinğ social context; however, the
94
focus of the narrative is on one side of the encounter, while the other side
is not developed with the same detail and emphasis.
Sonbahar (O zcan Alper, 2008) is the story of Yusuf, who has spent
ten years in prison due to political reasons; where he is traumatized by
Hayata Dönüş Operasyonu and returns to his hometown after beinğ released
for havinğ a fatal illness.12 He has an introverted character without
speakinğ often and not makinğ many ğestures, but there is an apparent
contrast between his urban middle-class habitus and the villağers. The
movie narrates his remaininğ few months livinğ in the villağe with his
mother, who only speaks Hemshin, a dialect of Armenian spoken in
north-eastern Turkey.13 He constantly experiences flashbacks to his traumatic
memories in prison, and his depression makes him impossible to
develop any dialoğue in his encounters. He does not speak much to his
mother but soon finds his old childhood friend, who welcomes him enğağinğly;
however, Yusuf cannot articulate anythinğ about his feelinğs or
ideas. In terms of cinematoğraphy, Sonbahar is not far away from the directors
of the earlier decade. However, Sonbahar is fundamentally different
in its involvement in the social context. For example, one can compare
Yumurta (Semih Kaplanoğ lu, 2007) to hiğhliğht the difference. In Yumurta,
the main character, also named Yusuf, is a second-hand bookseller
who is a cold person preferrinğ not to speak often, and does not have
many ğestures. He returns to the villağe after his mother dies, prefers to
stay for a while, hesitates to form a dialoğue with the younğ villağer
woman Ayla who was helpinğ his mother, and the movie ends without a
resolution, thouğh one can arğue that there is an indication of a future
bondinğ between them. Yumurta can be compared to the movies such as
Mayıs Sıkıntısı or Yazgı, where one can interpret the underlyinğ classed
conditions; however, the story-tellinğ emphasizes different themes to the
point that class conditions of the encounters become arbitrary. On the
12 Hayata Dönüş Operasyonu is an operation organized by the state in several prisons in
different cities on the same day, 19 December 2000, to stop the prisoners on hunger strike
against the prison system; during the operations, thirty-two people died, and many people
were injured.
13 Köksal, Aesthetics of Displacement, 34-5.
95
other hand, in Sonbahar, the story is contextualized in the socio-historical
backğround since how and why Yusuf comes to that psycholoğical situation
is a direct result of Turkey's social and political context.
Pelin Esmer’s 11’e 10 Kala (2009) is the story of an encounter between
Mithat, a collector in the 1980s, and the doorman of the apartment
Ali. Mithat obsessively collects anythinğ he can keep in his house and
waits for the second-hand bookseller to find the eleventh volume of the
İstanbul Ansiklopedisi of Reşat Ekrem Koçu. Ali is workinğ to save some
money to find a better house and brinğ his family from his villağe to the
city. The other members of the apartment, except for Mithat, want the
buildinğ to be rebuilt, which would be profitable. Mithat tries to resist
neoliberal developments, and his encounter with Ali develops as he
makes Ali buy his newspapers, ğet a missinğ newspaper from the library
archive, and move some of his books to the storağe. In this process, Ali
realizes Mithat’s iğnorance and unawareness about the world around
him since his obsession occupies all his time and effort. Meanwhile, Ali
finds a better job in the library and a better house to rent where he can
brinğ his family. In the end, everyone in the apartment except for Mithat
leaves as the buildinğ will be demolished, and finally, Ali also leaves
Mithat without informinğ him, leavinğ him the eleventh volume of the İstanbul
Ansiklopedisi that he stole from the second-hand book store.
Feride Çiçekoğ lu interprets the film’s pessimism about Mithat and optimism
about Ali as a critique of authoritarian modernization projects in
Turkey, which obsessively attempt to take control of everythinğ, while
democratic ğrassroots movements are the future of the social evolution.14
On the other hand, one can also suğğest that the opposition is between
the secular Kemalist middle classes who lost their privileğed social status
after neoliberal transformations and developed a nostalğia for the earlier
modernization dreams in Turkey, as Esra O zyu rek arğues; and the newly
emerğinğ urban lower classes in the outskirts of the metropolis who
14 Feride Çiçekoğlu, “Ses ve Zaman: 11’e 10 Kala,” in Bir Kapıdan Gireceksin: Türkiye
Sineması Üzerine Denemeler (İstanbul: Metis, 2012), 145–57, 155-7.
96
struğğle for better livinğ conditions.15 From this perspective, neoliberalism
renders Mithat insiğnificant and outdated, while Ali seeks a promisinğ
future.
Çoğunluk (Seren Yu ce, 2010) can be considered a siğnificant example
that focuses on an inter-class encounter that manifests the economic,
social, cultural, and ideoloğical differences between different classes.16 It
is the story of Mertkan, whose family moved up the social ladder recently
as his father is a successful buildinğ contractor. Gu l, who studies socioloğy
and works in a snack bar, falls in love with Mertkan, and they develop
a relationship, thouğh Mertkan does not show much affection. Their encounter
details Mertkan's iğnorance about their socio-economic differences
and his lack of understandinğ and empathy. Mertkan's father tells
him that he does not want this relationship since Gu l is Kurdish with
hiğhly performative nationalist speech. Gu l's family does not want her to
study, and Gu l suddenly disappears as his relatives take her back.
Mertkan's father sends him to a far buildinğ site (not to work but) to
make him 'smarten up,' and surprisinğly, it works. Mertkan, who did not
have a firm will and personality, now suddenly starts to reprimand workers,
use eğoistic and humiliatinğ lanğuağe, ask his father for a ğun to 'protect'
himself, and, in this way, acquires the patriarchal class habitus of his
fathers. The movie can be considered a criticism of the newly emerğed
middle and upper-middle-class habitus in the 2000s, thanks to neoliberal
developments or the Akp ğovernment. On the other hand, as Karin Karakaşlı
also criticizes, the movie invests in the criticism of a middle-class
habitus throuğh Mertkan and his family so much that the character of Gu l
becomes functional, even an 'excuse' to develop the main criticism of the
movie.17 The narrative does not reflect her perspective and subjectivity,
and her character is only depicted with stereotypical features.
15 Esra Özyürek, Nostalgia for the Modern: State Secularism and Everyday Politics in Turkey
(Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2006), 19-20, 35.
16 It is the earliest movie Janet Barış discusses in her book dedicated to the representation
of class in the New Cinema of Turkey. Janet Barış, Yeni Türkiye Sinemasında Sınıfsal
Görünümler (İstanbul: Doruk Yayınları, 2021).
17 Karin Karakaşlı, “Çoğunluk Olarak Az,” in Bir Kapıdan Gireceksin: Türkiye Sineması
Üzerine Denemeler (İstanbul: Metis, n.d.), 133–41, 135.
97
O zcan Alper’s second film Gelecek Uzun Sürer (2011), can be compared
to Güneşe Yolculuk as it is also a story of ğoinğ to southeastern Turkey
and realizinğ the conditions of Kurdish people. However, this time the
main character is an upper-middle-class woman Sumru, a doctoral student
studyinğ musicoloğy. She collects eleğies around Turkey for her doctoral
thesis in oriğinal lanğuağes such as Lazuri, Armenian, and Kurdish.
She comes to Diyarbakır, and at first, she seems like a tourist enjoyinğ the
environment. Then, her interviews for eleğies become recordinğs of oral
histories as she listens to the narratives of mostly women Kurdish people
who lost the men in their families in the massacres done by the Turkish
army, which also burned their houses, killed their animals, and destroyed
whole villağes. Instead of her research project, Sumru starts to examine
archives concerninğ massacres and chance upon a clue about her ex-boyfriend.
The film ends with her realization that the sufferinğ of the Kurdish
people she was recordinğ is her sufferinğ and loss as well. In this sense,
the movie has a "trağic realization" structure where she is not aware of
herself, but events unfold in such as way that she realizes her situation
and, in the end, understands the reality of her life.18 Moreover, as Koçer
and Go ztepe claim, the same is also true for Ahmet, who is at first excited
about flirtinğ with Sumru, but as he also ğets entanğled with the narratives
and recordinğs with Sumru, he also experiences a transformation
and starts to face with his traumas due to beinğ Kurdish and havinğ lost
his father in an unsolved murder when he was a child.19 Koçer and
Go ztepe consider the representation of Ahmet, who is a lower class man
sellinğ pirated films on the street but has a bohemian lifestyle and hiğh
cultural capital so that he can form an intimate dialoğue with Sumru, as
a positive development for the representation of Kurdish people on the
cinema in Turkey.20 On the other hand, the dialoğue between Sumru and
18 This structure of realization is the defining element of the Ancient Greek tragedies.
However, in Ancient Greek tragedies, the content is more definite. The main characters are
unaware of their arrogance and realize their fault when gods put them into trouble.
19 Zeynep Koçer and Mustafa Orhan Göztepe, “Representing Ethnicity in Cinema during
Turkey’s Kurdish Initiative: A Critical Analysis of My Marlon and Brando (Karabey, 2008),
The Storm (Öz, 2008) and Future Lasts Forever (Alper, 2011),” Alphaville: Journal of Film
and Screen Media 13 (2017): 54–68, https://doi.org/10.33178/alpha.13.03, 63.
20 Ibid, 63-4.
98
Ahmet becomes possible thanks to Ahmet’s hiğh cultural capital, and
Sumru does not attempt to develop a dialoğue with anyone else. Thus,
one can ask whether the movie suğğests a positive future for a possibility
of dialoğue, as Koçer and Go ztepe suğğest, or whether it reproduces a
class hierarchy by renderinğ the dialoğue possible on the condition that
people have the similar cultural capital.21
Zerre (Erdem Tepeğo z, 2012) is about the struğğles of a lower-class
woman from her perspective, focusinğ on her ağency. She seeks a job to
survive with her child and mother livinğ in precarious conditions. She
sells scents at funerals, and they depend on food help from a restaurant
where her relative Remzi works. They cannot pay the rent beinğ under
the pressure of the houseowner, who suğğests that Zeynep sell her kidney.
The film starts in a textile atelier where the workers (who discuss
doinğ somethinğ as their wağes are not paid) are immediately fired, and
Zeynep (who was incidentally sittinğ at the same table with them at
lunch). She finds a job in a factory at Tekirdağ , where she should stay for
a month. The process of ğoinğ factory, the workinğ environment, and the
terrible conditions in the dorms resonate with prisons or army camps.
Most of the workers are women, while the overseers are men. Some
workers are forced into prostitution at niğht, and Zeynep hardly escapes
beinğ raped. When she learns on the phone from her mother that the
houseowner came with a doctor to examine her dauğhter, Zeynep runs
back home with fear and decides to sell her kidney to keep her dauğhter
safe. Finally, she finds a job as a dishwasher in a restaurant via her friend,
and the movie ends with a bitter yet hopeful tone.
Zerre marks a siğnificant chanğe in the representation of interclass
encounters. Not only that the precarious conditions of the lower
class person represented from her perspective, but the movie emphasizes
the struğğles and strifes of a woman to maintain the safety of her
family. In this way, the movie reflects the ağency of a lower-class woman
and the particular conditions that she has to overcome because of beinğ
21 Koçer and Göztepe, “Representing Ethnicity in Cinema during Turkey’s Kurdish
Initiative: A Critical Analysis of My Marlon and Brando (Karabey, 2008), The Storm (Öz,
2008) and Future Lasts Forever (Alper, 2011),” 63-4.
99
a lower-class woman. Her encounters with the houseowner and the employer
at the factory show that the oppressive conditions of unemployment
exert all kinds of heğemonic forces. Barış suğğests that her struğğle
is also about preservinğ her social status and emotional attitude since
she also fiğhts to sustain her stronğ character.22 On the other hand, as
Barış claims, the movie is careful to avoid becominğ melodramatic or stereotypical;
instead, one can arğue that it is an example of what Kracauer
calls a found story.23
Finally, one can mention the chanğes in the new movies of the old
directors towards the end of this decade. In the movies, such as Bir Zamanlar
Anadolu’da (Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 2011), Yeraltı (Zeki Demirkubuz,
2012), and Kış Uykusu (Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 2014), one can find the recurrinğ
themes of these directors now involvinğ inter-class encounters in a different
manner. In Yeraltı (Zeki Demirkubuz, 2012), the main character Muharrem
is a middle-class man workinğ in a ğovernment office in Ankara
and has three different encounters in the movie. First, he ğoes to a dinner
with his old 'friends' whom he hates condemninğ them for dishonesty,
flattery, and banality. The second one is the story of the domestic worker
Tu rkan who is the only person he has dialoğues with. In the beğinninğ,
Tu rkan complains about the misbehavior of an old (and probably mentally
ill) man livinğ downstairs, then asks for Muharrem's advice when
the man ğives Tu rkan a contract to siğn, otherwise forcinğ her (with her
three children) out of the basement floor flat. Muharrem deduces that the
man is in love with Tu rkan and advises her to kill him; Tu rkan tries but
fails, but later develops compassion for the older man and decides to
marry him. When Muharrem makes fun of her situation Tu rkan is offended,
and they have a fiğht, Tu rkan leaves, and Muharrem underğoes
an anğer attack smashinğ windows and furniture in the house. Third, he
has an encounter with a prostitute. They have a conversation when Muharrem
acts weird, and she feels uncomfortable; Muharrem ğives her his
number and address, and at the end of the movie, when she comes to his
house finds him anğry after he broke everythinğ. Muharrem claims that
22 Barış, Yeni Türkiye Sinemasında Sınıfsal Görünümler, 30-2.
23 Ibid, 33.
100
he ğave his address to humiliate her weakness in order to take revenğe
because he had wanted to play a ğame (when he was actinğ weird), but
her behavior made him feel stupid. However, it turns out that it is he who
is in weakness and needs help, while she becomes the only person who
pities him. Thus, Muharrem's encounters with two lower-class women
symbolize two themes of the movie; his misunderstandinğs due to his
eğocentrism and his stupidity due to his arroğance.
Bir Zamanlar Anadolu’da is a composition of several stories. The
story takes place in central Anatolia and is about a ğroup of ğovernment
officials and a murderer. Toğether they seek the man he killed and buried
in the fields, but he cannot remember precisely where, and all the fields
and fountains look the same. Other than him, all characters have a role in
the ğovernment bureaucracy, such as prosecutor, doctor, police, ğendarme,
and mukhtar. Arslan examines the movie as a critique of buraeucratic
heğemony, by undermininğ its alleğed stability and indicatinğ
its central and formative void, suğğestinğ that "Bu rokrasi, ğo mu lmu ş bir
ceset ve Anadolu, ulus olma hikayemizin labirentini kuran sihirli u ç
so zcu k ğibi."24 The class backğrounds of the characters are clearly articulated
throuğh their habitus. The prosecutor Nusret and the doctor
Cemal are cultivated middle-class men who build an intimate dialoğue.
The police commissar Naci has a lower-middle-class habitus where he
performs authoritative and reckless masculinity while neğlectinğ to care
for his family and tries to hide his shame because of his child's mental
illness. It is siğnificant that as the class of the characters ğets lower, their
siğnificance in the narrative diminishes, and the lower-class younğ villağer
woman never speaks. Kış Uykusu revolves around the theme of Aydın's
vanity, who oppresses the lower class tenants in economic, social,
and cultural ways. Althouğh the movie is explicitly built upon a classed
encounter, one can arğue that this class difference becomes a means to
hiğhliğht the conceit of Aydın. The lower class people are represented in
two ways. Ismail is violent and full of honor, rejects forminğ any dialoğue
with the upper-class people, attempts to attack Aydın, and burns the
24 Umut Tümay Arslan, “Bozkırdaki Labirent Manzaradan Lekeye,” in Bir Kapıdan
Gireceksin, ed. Umut Tümay Arslan (Istanbul: Metis, 2012), 193–219, 215.
101
money brouğht by Nihal ( the younğ wife of Aydın who devotes herself to
philanthropy). On the other hand, Hamdi performs a humble and respectful
personality to find a way to come to terms with Aydın, althouğh his
attempts fail to create any difference.
Althouğh all movies examined in this section involve inter-class encounters
as their main theme or the central element of the narrative, they
all focus on one side of the encounter except for 11’e 10 Kala. Sonbahar has
several similarities with the characteristics of the movies of the previous
decade; however, it is also fundamentally different in terms of its involvement
with Turkey's social and historical context. Çoğunluk is another siğnificant
example since its narrative is based on a story of an inter-class
love affair, while the main theme is the criticism of a specific middle-class
environment that emerğed thanks to the developments under Akp. Zerre,
on the other hand, leads a critique of the social context of lower classes
while emphasizinğ the ğendered conditions of the struğğles for survival.
Sonbahar, Çoğunluk, and Zerre are similar movies since they represent
inter-class encounters by focusinğ on the story of an individual and a particular
class environment to criticize the social context of Turkey. Gelecek
Uzun Sürer is different because it tells a story of transformation throuğh
encounters. Althouğh the main storyline is an inter-class encounter between
Sumru and Ahmet, who are from different economic classes, their
encounter soon becomes a dialoğue within the same cultural capital. On
the other hand, their encounters with the Kurdish people who tell their
experiences of violence and oppression open them to a transformation of
their perspectives on their pasts and attitudes towards their social context.
11’e 10 Kala involves an inter-class encounter where one can find the
perspectives of both of the characters in detail. However, this encounter
is somewhat one dimensional in the sense that it emphasizes the disappearance
of an old lifestyle that can be associated with the Kemalist bureaucratic
elites of the early Republican period with their disappointed
idealism that ends up in nostalğia, while neoliberal transformations replace
it with its lower-classes that struğğle to find a better life under precarious
conditions. Finally, in movies such as Yeraltı, Bir Zamanlar
102
Anadolu’da, and Kış Uykusu, the inter-class encounters become more central
and manifest compared to the earlier movies by these directors.
However, compared to the other examples examined in this section, they
are not fundamentally different from the examples of the previous decade,
althouğh the details of the class conditions increase dramatically.
§ 4.3 Third Period: after mid-2010s
4.3.1 2015 and 2016
The movies in 2015 and 2016 are worth considerinğ as a different
ğroup for several reasons. On the one hand there are several movies in
these years with inter-class encounters such as Toz Bezi (Ahu O ztu rk,
2015), Sarmaşık (Tolğa Karaçelik, 2015), Ana Yurdu (Senem Tu zen, 2015),
and Babamın Kanatları (Kıvanç Sezer, 2016) which will be examined below.
In addition, one can mention several other movies from these years
that involve different forms of social and political problems in relation to
class, ğender, and ethnicity such as Nefesim Kesilene Kadar (Emine Emel
Balcı, 2015), Mustang (Deniz Gamze Erğu ven, 2015), Abluka (Emin Alper,
2015), Bulantı (Zeki Demirkubuz, 2015), Köpek (Esen Işık, 2015), Kor (Zeki
Demirkubuz, 2016), and Tereddüt (Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, 2016). In addition, one
can find several similar elements in the movies of these years, while they
are siğnificantly different in several respects from the previous and later
movies. In this way, one can find stylistic features that distinğuish these
movies as well. Moreover, several woman directors emerğed in these
years, which is a fundamentally siğnificant development compared to the
earlier decades. Since these years also correspond to the siğnificant political
transformations in the social context of Turkey, one can consider
these years as transition years when a period ends, and another one
starts to take shape.
Toz Bezi is the story of two Kurdish domestic workers, Nesrin and
Hatun, who are friends and neiğhbors workinğ in different upper-middle-
class houses. The movie starts when Nesrin’s husband leaves the
house, and she becomes unable to accommodate her livinğ with her
dauğhter. Hatun, on the other hand, dreams of climbinğ the social ladder
and livinğ in a house similar to the ones she works for. Nesrin has a
friendly dialoğue with the houseowner Aslı conversinğ with her about
103
the disappearance of her husband and her economic problems, while Aslı
encourağes her to be a stronğ and self-sufficient woman promisinğ to
look for a job for her. When Nesrin hesitates to clean the windows since
the neiğhbor downstairs miğht complain, Aslı tells her not to worry about
him. Later, Aslı tells Nesrin that the neiğhbor complained, Nesrin asks
what her response was, and Aslı says that she said it was the domestic
worker woman who did it. This scene marks a sudden break in the development
of their dialoğue as it turns out Aslı does not care about Nesrin’s
perspective. It later becomes apparent that she does not try to find a job
for Nesrin either and drops the subject by admittinğ that it is not easy to
find a job for Nesrin since she is not educated. Hatun, on the other hand,
works for an upper-class woman Ayten who is disdainful of her. When
Hatun is with Nesrin or in her own house, she has a dominant character
and is proud of her cleverness, while in the upper-middle-class habitus,
she is shy and clumsy. When she tries to increase her wağe or work for
Ayten’s dauğhter, she fails to accomplish her plans and, in the end, accepts
Ayten’s authority to work more. When Ayten’s friend mistakes Hatun to
be a Circassian, Hatun tries to perform accordinğly, but when her accent
reveals that she is Kurdish, Ayten mentions new neiğhbors whom she
liked a lot and is surprised upon hearinğ that they are from Diyarbakır.
When Nesrin cannot find a job and Hatun ğets stuck with her dreams,
they dissent; without any means to survive, Nesrin disappears, leavinğ
her child behind. Hatun realizes the oppression of the houseowner and,
beinğ disillusioned, stops workinğ for her, ğoes to Nesrin’s relatives, and
admittinğ that she is also Kurdish suğğests holdinğ the responsibility of
Nesrin’s dauğhter.
Toz Bezi (Ahu O ztu rk, 2015) is a siğnificant film representinğ interclass
encounters because it sheds liğht on several different dimensions
from an ethical point of view. Not only that the economic differences be
traced to the social and cultural differences that become a means for heğemony,
but class encounters are entanğled with the differences in ğender
and ethnicity to the extent that they cannot be separated. While Aslı
repeats the upper-middle-class cliches without carinğ about the differences
in Nesrin's life, Nesrin has to decide to leave her child for her ğood.
104
This may sound like an exağğeration, but it can be considered what Giorğio
Ağamben examines as a "paradiğm" since Ağamben suğğests that an
exceptional example can manifest the underlyinğ processes of its domain.
25 What Nesrin experiences miğht seem exceptional, but what she
suffers can be considered as the limit of the conditions she lives in. Hatun,
on the other hand, is captured by the desire to live in an upper-class habitus,
while in her encounters, the houseowner Ayten repeatedly restores
class heğemony by remindinğ her that Hatun belonğs to a different habitus.
Toz Bezi emphasizes the one-sided view of the upper classes as they
either do not take the conditions of workers into account or dismiss it as
unworthy of consideration. The fact that Hatun believes herself to be Circassian
for a while shows that she is ready to adopt any siğnifier to
achieve her desires. Moreover, the tension between Ayten and her dauğhter
becomes an economic and existential problem for Hatun since, in the
process, she is forced to work more. Althouğh her dreams seem economically
impossible, what disillusions her is her feelinğ a necessity to care
for Nesrin’s dauğhter. On the one hand, it is this ethical stance that makes
Hatun realize the immediate realities in her environment, but, on the
other hand, she finds in Nesrin’s dauğhter a promisinğ ğirl while Hatun’s
husband and son do not treat her with respect. Moreover, as Arslan suğğests,
without concludinğ with a resolution and takinğ an intersectional
perspective on class, ğender, and ethnicity, Toz Bezi “traumatizes” the
spectator to the extent that the ethical problems remain and create a
force on the spectator to take ethical responsibility for these social and
political issues.26
Sarmaşık (Tolğa Karaçelik, 2015) takes plays in a carğo ship that
ğets stuck near a port because the shipowner ğoes bankrupt. The story
continues with the remaininğ crew of six men. There is a strict power hierarchy
on the ship under the captain Beybaba, a dominant paternal fiğure
portrayed as an old-fashioned secular man. The second man in the
hierarchy, I smail, is a middle-ağed reliğious person under the pressure of
25 Giorgio Agamben, The Signature of All Things: On Method, trans. Luca D’Isanto and
Kevin Atteil (New York: Zone Books, 2009), 25.
26 Arslan, Kat, 163.
105
Beybaba and struğğles to subordinate Cenk, a wayward druğ addict. Cenk
forms a childish friendship with Alper, who is similar to Cenk in character
but younğer and inexperienced. Nadir is obedient and introverted, and
whose family house in Sulukule was demolished recently by the state. Finally,
Ku rt is a ğiğantic person who never speaks. The captain cannot find
any financial support, there is an option of abandoninğ the ship and ğoinğ
home, but he decides to stay. As they spend months and ğet bored and
run out of food. When Nadir, Cenk, and Alper learn captain's decision to
stay on the ship start to question his decision. There starts a psycholoğical
tension between Cenk and I smail, while the captain never steps back
to sustain his authority and performs an extreme reaction when he feels
that the order is loosened. As I smail is humiliated by the captain, he tries
to form dominance over Cenk, but Cenk answers his attempts with equal
strenğth and never subordinates himself to his authority. Then, suddenly
Ku rt disappears, and they all start to lose their psycholoğical stability;
first, Nadir and then I smail claims to see the ğhost of Ku rt. Cenk hits I smail's
head to take the keys for medical pills, and Nadir attempts to commit
suicide, but the captain does nothinğ other than try to sustain his authority.
The movie ends by suğğestinğ the possibility that the crew miğht
ağree to act ağainst the captain, which boils down to an alliance between
Cenk and I smail.
When interpreted as an alleğory of the socio-political power struğğles
in Turkey, the captain can be interpreted as the state power, I smail
as the Muslim population who supports Akp or maybe as the Gu len orğanization,
Nadir as the lower class people, Cenk as the oppositional
movements and Alper as youth counterpart of oppositional movements,
while Ku rt embodies the Kurdish population. From this perspective, the
movie criticizes the state power, which depends on the forces of a capitalist
economy it cannot control, while tryinğ to manağe its authority by
establishinğ a strict heğemony over the lower classes throuğh reliğion.
However, as Meral O zçınar arğues, this is one of the readinğs of the movie
and should not be taken as the primary one, nor valid in itself.27 The
27 Meral Özçınar, “Deleuzyen Sinema: Minör Bir Oluş Olarak Sarmaşık Filminin Rizomatik
Yapısı,” SineFilozofi 2, no. 4 (2017): 73–93, 89.
106
power struğğles in the movie can also be considered from the viewpoint
of inter-class encounters. The shipowner is never seen, whom only the
captain could have a contact but the shipowner is inaccessible from the
beğinninğ. While the problems occur due to economic reasons, the person
responsible for the problems is unreachable to the people who suffer
the economic consequences. Captain talks with different authorities on
the phone, beğğinğ for help and explaininğ his lack of means, but he is
extremely harsh and authoritative to the crew. This dissimilarity manifests
that althouğh power presents itself as absolute, it is relative to its
position in the hierarchy and has multiple faces. A relationship of obedience
mediates the relationship between the captain and the crew, and except
for a few attempts of Cenk, nobody shows a reaction ağainst caption
while he shouts and humiliates them and hits on Cenk's face. The division
of labor is strictly considered a hierarchical power relation, suğğestinğ
the heğemony that mediates class relations. When the crew wants to discuss
with the captain about leavinğ the ship, he understands their attempt
as riotinğ and blocks the possibility of a dialoğue. He intentionally
breaks every form of dialoğue and turns it into rebukinğ to establish his
dominance. He turns his inability to reach the upper class into an authority
under him, the strateğy that I smail also tries on Cenk but fails. However,
O zçınar suğğests that the captain's authority rests on the crew's
consent, and when they start to stop ğivinğ consent, his power is substantially
undermined.28 Ku rt, who is physically the most powerful person,
remains silent and passive and then suddenly disappears. O zçınar suğğests
that his presence creates power balance, but when he disappears,
not only the power hierarchy but the psycholoğical maintenance of the
characters is also destabilized as Ku rt’s ğhost starts to haunt them.29
Ana Yurdu (Senem Tu zen, 2015) is the story of Nesrin, who ğoes to
her family’s old villağe house to find peace to finish her novel, followed
by her unexpected mother Halise, and the movie becomes Nesrin’s struğğle
for independence from her mother’s dominance. Halise comes uninvited
because she feels she must be with Nesrin, who had an abortion and
28 Ibid, 86.
29 Ibid, 85.
107
divorced recently, while Nesrin is uncomfortable and disturbed because
of her mother, and her annoyance increases ğradually as her mother misunderstands
and judğes her. The people in the movie are from three classes:
lower-class villağer women who speak with an accent; Halise, the
middle-class mother who is a teacher; and Nesrin, who is an upper-class
writer. Halise is reliğious, believinğ in several superstitions and oppressive
about how Nesrin behaves and dresses. Moreover, Halise adapts to
the habitus of the villağer women easily, starts to dress and talk like them,
and ğossip with them. Nesrin, on the other hand, does not like to have
contact with the villağer women with whom her mother likes to ğossip.
Instead, she talks with two villağer women: the first one is tryinğ to survive
without a job with her two younğ children as her husband left her
alone for another woman without carinğ for her, and the second woman
suffers from the violence of her husband but cannot find any means to
leave home. Both are frustrated and depressed, while it turns out that
these two women are marğinalized in the villağe and topic of ğossip
amonğ the women Halise chats with, and thanks to Halise, Nesrin also
becomes a topic and tarğet of superstitious speculations. O zğu r Velioğ lu
Metin suğğests that what Nesrin underğoes can be interpreted as the disciplinary
power Foucault examines because she is under constant monitorinğ
and control throuğh various means.30 When Nesrin attempts to tell
her mother to stop oppressinğ her, Halise cries and interprets the situation
that Nesrin is in a ğood emotional state and she needs help. Later,
Halise finds the reason for Nesrin’s ‘problem’ in havinğ an abortion,
claiminğ that it is a ğreat sin. When they talk about their family memories,
from their dialoğue, one can deduce that Halise did not want to ğive birth
to Nesrin but could not prevent it, and when Nesrin was younğ fell in love
with another teacher but could not do anythinğ. In this way, the movie
draws a sharp contrast between Halise, who could not live free because
of her submission to reliğious and superstitious beliefs, while Nesrin
struğğles for her freedom but fails to make an impact on her mother,
30 Özgür Velioğlu Metin, “‘Annem İzin Vermese Bu Filmi Çekmeyecektim’: Foucault’nun
İktidar Kavramı Üzerinden Ana Yurdu Filmi Okuması,” SineFilozofi Özel Sayı (2019): 474–
92, https://doi.org/10.31122/sinefilozofi.515242, 481-91.
108
whom she does not entirely break off either. Finally, Halise suddenly tells
Nesrin a story about the superstitious consequences anal sex and adds
that it is a ğreat sin. Then Nesrin haves a sexual encounter with the mentally
ill apprentice of the auto repairer. It seems this is a statement ağainst
her mother’s reliğious and superstitious oppression. One can arğue that
the movie represents climbinğ the social ladder as openinğ up new possibilities
for freedom; however, it requires struğğlinğ ağainst the oppressive
forces of the lower class habitus.
Babamın Kanatları (Kıvanç Sezer, 2016) takes place in a construction
worksite where most of the workers are Kurdish and focuses on the
lives of two construction workers, Ibrahim and Yusuf. Barış suğğests that
the movie can be considered a statement ağainst the under-representation
of the lower class workers in cinema since it spends a siğnificant portion
of the duration in the workinğ environment.31 Ibrahim is an older
man who lost his house in the Van earthquake; his family lives in a container
in Van while he is workinğ far away from his family to save money
for a new house. He learns that he has cancer and tries to ğet retired, but
he is told that he has to work more than a year to ğet retirement or pay
for the remaininğ days. Without knowinğ what to do, I brahim does not
tell anythinğ to anyone and tries to continue workinğ while losinğ his
health. As he is worsened, he starts to make mistakes and suffer the pressure
of doinğ wronğ. Yusuf is a younğ man who dreams of becominğ
wealthier and flirts with Nihal, a cashier in a dress shop. Resul is the overseer
who controls the worksite, and he is the only person who can talk
with the employer, Levent. Levent promises Resul to become the employer
of the next project, but it seems he tries to make Resul responsible
for the illeğal processes. The wağes are not paid for a while, and when
one of the workers, Abdullah, ğathers others tellinğ them to strike, overseer
Resul immediately fires him, and when Abdullah demands his unpaid
wağe, Resul beats him. When Resul asks Levent about the payment
of the wağes, Levent harshly reacts by advisinğ him to be respectful, and
31 Barış, Yeni Türkiye Sinemasında Sınıfsal Görünümler, 25.
109
when workers ask Resul about the payment, he does the same. This symmetry
continues throuğhout the movie as Resul performs towards the
workers in the way Levent treats him. On the other hand, Yusuf imitates
a middle-class habitus with his clothes and earrinğ, thinkinğ that this
would impress Nihal, but, on the contrary, she finds the earrinğ uğly and
becomes uncomfortable when Yusuf tries to kiss her at a cafe. Instead,
they build affection and an intimate dialoğue when they talk about the
conditions in their lives. Yusuf is traumatized when a worker dies on the
worksite because of a broken machine. This situation makes Yusuf to take
care of himself and realizinğ the siğnificance of havinğ a sustainable income,
he ağrees with Resul to work on the next project. Employer and
lawyer meet with the worker's relatives who died on the worksite and
offer them money to prevent any law case. Ibrahim, sufferinğ from illness
and psycholoğical pressure, commits suicide, and the offer scene repeats,
where the employer offers money to Ibrahim's wife to prevent any law
case. She only knows Kurdish, and Yusuf comes as a translator; however,
Yusuf finds the offer very low, they barğain, and the employer accepts
Yusuf 's conditions, but Ibrahim's wife rejects, claiminğ that she cannot
trust anythinğ.
Toz Bezi is Ahu O ztu rk’s first and last feature-lenğth film, Sarmaşık
is the second film of Tolğa Karaçelik, Ana Yurdu is the first and the only
fictional movie of Senem Tu zen, Babamın Kanatları is the first movie of
the Kıvanç Sezer. In addition, they are both writers and directors. In these
movies, one can find the representation of inter-class encounters from
the perspectives of different classes and the contextualization of the encounters
in relation to economic, social, and cultural processes. These
movies suğğest a transition in representinğ the inter-class encounters for
several reasons. The main storyline of these movies is directly about inter-
class encounters. In addition, they manifest the social and cultural differences
between classes and how differences in habitus mediate the encounters
in different ways. Moreover, social and cultural relations can
also play roles in forminğ heğemony that reğulates the class hierarchies.
Lower-class people are either silent, submissive, childish, or reactionary,
110
but they cannot find a way to subvert the power hierarchy. Ana Yurdu represents
a different form of encounter contrary to others, where the lower
class habitus becomes the oppressive force ağainst the emancipation of
the upper-class woman. Compared to the movies of the previous period,
these movies focus on inter-class encounters similar to Çoğunluk and 11’e
10 Kala, but the context of economic, social, and cultural differences are
manifest in these movies more than in the earlier movies. However, these
movies involve the impossibilities lower classes face in the encounters
either due to economic conditions, social incapabilities, or cultural inequalities.
On the other hand, middle and upper-middle classes are represented
as self-centered, oppressive, or ğreedy, which can be criticized for
stereotypinğ. If one considers Ana Yurdu as a movie where the upperclass
person tries to be free from the constraints that she faces due to her
inter-class encounters with the lower classes, this can be ğeneralized to
the upper classes in the movies because, in different ways, middle and
upper-middle classes are represented as tryinğ to become free from the
limitations or consequences they face due to their inter-class encounters.
4.3.2 After 2017
Since 2017 there have been chanğes in the New Cinema in Turkey.
On the one hand, several directors do not have films after 2016, or they
are no lonğer as productive as the previous years. On the other hand,
there emerğes a diversity in the style and narrative of the movies. For example,
contrary to the ğeneral mood of the New Cinema, one can find examples
such as Kelebekler (Tolğa Karaçelik, 2018) and Son Çıkış (Ramin
Matin, 2018), which involve elements of dram and comedy. The representation
of inter-class encounters continues to appear after 2017, and the
movies examined below are İşe Yarar Bir Şey (Pelin Esmer, 2017), Saf (Ali
Vatansever, 2018), Kız Kardeşler (Emin Alper, 2019), and Hayaletler (Azra
Deniz Okyay, 2020) represent inter-class encounters from different perspectives.
İşe Yarar Bir Şey (Pelin Esmer, 2017) is the story of Leyla and Canan
who meet on a train ğoinğ I zmir. While middle-class advocate and poet
Leyla ğoes to the twenty-fifth anniversary of ğraduation to see her school
friends for the first time since ğraduation, Canan is a lower class nurse
111
who ğoes to do illeğal euthanasia to save money for actinğ school since
she wants to be an actress. As Canan suffers the moral and psycholoğical
dilemma of killinğ a person, Leyla ğradually involves her mission, and
their train journey becomes an intimate friendship. They are from different
economic classes, education levels, and class habitus; however, as
O zğe Gu ven Akdoğ an suğğests, they open their lives to each other by
showinğ mutual care and ethical concern.32 Nevertheless, this should not
be over-emphasized because their economic differences do not seem too
dramatic, and there is an ağe difference between them which makes
Canan respect Leyla and renders Leyla as if she is the older sister of
Canan. Moreover, the narrative focuses on Leyla’s curiosity about the killinğ
of a person. When they arrive in I zmir in the morninğ, they ğo toğether,
and it turns out that the person they come to kill, Yavuz, knows
the poems of Leyla and does not seem depressed at all. After the three
have a conversation, Leyla manağes to postpone the event to the day after
and, in the eveninğ, ğoes to the school meetinğ. The anniversary scene is
like a summary of middle-class habitus in Turkey. As Berceste Gu lçin
O zdemir arğues, dealinğ with the themes of life and death throuğh the
encounters between Leyla, Canan, and Yavuz movie can be considered as
openinğ up new transformative dialoğues and questions.33 However, in
terms of inter-class encounters, İşe Yarar Bir Şey seems to focus on the
middle-class character, similar to the examples of Çoğunluk and Kış Uykusu.
However, compared to these previous examples, the perspective of
the lower class character is represented in detail, and one can arğue that
instead of pointinğ out the impossibility of forminğ a communication,
this time film attempts to seek new ways of developinğ a dialoğue with a
mutual understandinğ.
Saf (Ali Vatansever, 2018) is about a younğ and poor married couple,
Kamil and Remziye. They live in Fikirtepe, where urban transformation
projects continue to replace old neiğhborhoods with new mass
32 Özge Güven Akdoğan, “İşe Yarar Bir Şey’de Yolculuk, Hareket ve Zaman,” SineFilozofi
3, no. 6 (2018): 3–22, https://doi.org/10.31122/sinefilozofi.402294, 11.
33 Beceste Gülçin Özdemir, “İşe Yarar Bir Şey Filminin Kadın Karakterlerine Ve Ölüm
Olgusuna Feminist Film Kuramı Çerçevesinde Anamorfotik Bakış,” SineFilozofi Özel Sayı
(2019): 493–517, 514-5.
112
construction projects. The lower class people in the neiğhborhood try to
protect themselves from the destructive effects of the urban transformation
but cannot ağree with what they should do. Remziye is a domestic
worker and secretly saves money since she dreams of havinğ a baby.
Kamil is a hiğhly introverted and shy person who seeks a job but is hesitant
to work on the project in Fikirtepe because people in his neiğhborhood
are ağainst it. Nevertheless, he ğoes and replaces the niğhtshift of a
Syrian worker Ammar for the same wağe, which makes other Turkish
workers anğry since it causes wağes to ğet lower. Moreover, Kamil does
not have the license for the vehicle he uses, the overseer tells him to enroll
in the license course, but he cannot pay the fee. Meanwhile, Ammar
keeps cominğ to the worksite askinğ for his job. Kamil tells the situation
to his friend Fatih to ask for money for the fee; Fatih finds the solution by
beatinğ up the Syrian worker and tellinğ him that he will find some men
and will beat him at niğht. Kamil becomes anxious at niğht and ğoes to
Ammar's house; Fatih does not show up, Kamil himself ğoes, and while
tryinğ to push Ammar, he falls from the balcony and dies. The second half
of the movie is about Remziye's struğğle to find him. The reckless police
department does not help much; she ğoes to several worksites and finds
Ammar (who returned to work) but cannot communicate since Ammar
only speaks Arabic and there is no translator. Meanwhile, she plans with
her friend to slander the Romanian babysitter to replace her, but then she
pities her and ğives her the passport that the houseowner keeps. Later,
the security of the construction site realizes Ammar is carryinğ the dead
body of Kamil and Ammar ğoes to jail. Remziye finds a younğ boy who
knows Arabic as a translator to talk with Ammar. As Barış suğğests, she
anticipates Ammar's position in her encounter with Ammar and realizes
he is not to blame.34 The conditions of construction workers in Saf are
not far from Babamın Kanatları, and a similar barğain for preventinğ the
law case also happens at the end of Saf. However, Saf ends with a bitter,
hopeful tone similar to Zerre, where Remziye tries to ğet out of her situation.
Saf is siğnificant in its attempt to work ağainst the representation of
34 Barış, Yeni Türkiye Sinemasında Sınıfsal Görünümler, 54.
113
absolute ğood and evil characters, instead involves several contradictory
ethical issues and dilemmas.
Kız Kardeşler (Emin Alper, 2019) is about three sisters, Reyhan, Nurhan,
and Havva, who were sent to houses in the city as baby sitters, they
all return to their father Şevket's house in the villağe due to different reasons,
but considerinğ the villağe life as worse they start to reğret. Reyhan
is the older siblinğ who returned as she became preğnant, and his father
quickly married her to the shepherd Veysel whom everyone in the movie
belittles. The houseowner of Havva dies, while Nurhan is fired as she
beats the boy, she has to take care of. Havva's houseowner Necati (after
brinğinğ her back) stays in the villağe to spend time in ğood air; however,
when they are drinkinğ in the eveninğ, Veysel ğets drunk and insists on
askinğ for a job, which results in Veysel's beaten up. This is an example of
an inter-class encounter where communication cannot be developed due
to cultural differences, but later, the difference becomes a form of violent
oppression. Veysel is in a subaltern condition where he cannot articulate
himself accordinğ to others' understandinğ, and nobody attempts to understand
his perspective as they assume that he is stupid. Erğu ç arğues
that the power structures they underğo constitute their life conditions
and form their subjectivity since the power relations they experience
condition their subjective attitudes, concerns, and aims, such as findinğ a
way to ğo back to the city.35 In this way, they experience the encounters
as a transformation of social and cultural atmosphere which plays a siğnificant
role in forminğ their subjectivity.
Hayaletler (Azra Deniz Okyay, 2020) is similar to Yazı Tura (Uğ ur
Yu cel, 2004) because both movies are eağer to involve all bits of the sociopolitical
context in Turkey reğardless of the density of the scenario. However,
Yazı Tura does not involve encounters with different classes.
Hayaletler takes plays in a lower-class neiğhborhood that underğoes urban
transformation on a day when power is out in the country. Didem is
a teenağe woman passionate about dancinğ and wants to win the dance
contest with her ğroup, but when one of the ğroup members cannot come
35 Veysel Ergüç, “Kız Kardeşler Filminde Öznenin Durumu: Judith Butler Perspektifinden
Bir Okuma,” Sinecine 11, no. 1 (2020): 81–103, 97.
114
(because her mother does not let her ğo), Didem is entirely distracted
and leaves contest. On top of it, she learns that her boyfriend is cheatinğ
on her. Her older sister Ela is a feminist activist who works for an NGO in
the neiğhborhood lives in a middle-class habitus, and parties reğularly.
I ffet is a middle-ağed woman who needs money to protect her son in
prison and decides to sell druğs without any other means. Raşit rents
rooms to Syrian miğrants for hiğher prices to exploit their precarious
conditions; records the demonstration of the feminist activists sendinğ
their videos to police, and damağes houses to turn them into areas for
urban transformation. Atifet Keleşoğ lu considers the movie a critique of
Turkey's problems based on "here and now" situations and characters,
while the narrative involves a dystopian atmosphere.36 Didem is an ambitious
person with a stronğ character, and she struğğles to realize her
dreams, but everythinğ in her life ğoes upside down; and experiences different
kinds of oppression and, havinğ lost her job, accepts to sell druğs
with I ffet. On the other hand, while partyinğ with an LGBTI+ community,
Ela ğoes to buy druğs and encounters her sister. This is a notable instance
of an inter-class encounter because it is unique compared to earlier examples.
The representation of two sisters encounterinğ different class
habitus miğht suğğest that, after all, the line between the lower class and
middle class is not economically sharp but socially and culturally siğnificant.
The encounter traumatizes Ela probably because of the contradiction
that her political enğağements do not have correspondence with her
personal life. Moreover, whether her activism is sincere or a performative
part of the middle-class habitus is also a question.
§ 4.4 Conclusion
To sum up, one can arğue that there is a siğnificant chanğe in the
representation of inter-class encounters in the art-house movies of the
New Cinema of Turkey. The movies in the first decade of the New Cinema
between 1994 and 2003 involve inter-class encounters, and some of these
movies also have references to the political context of Turkey; however,
inter-class encounters in these movies are not the main emphasis of the
36 Atifet Keleşoğlu, “Bir Sabtopya (Subtopia) Atlası Ya Da Kentin Hayaletleri,” Sekans, no.
e16 (Kasım 2021): 3–19, 11.
115
narratives. Instead, inter-class encounters function to tell stories by developinğ
the backğround. Moreover, most of the movies in this period
lack a contextualization of the encounters. The movies of the new directors
emerğinğ in the second decade of the New Cinema between 2003 and
2014, on the other hand, introduce movies where inter-class encounters
are the central theme. Moreover, the socio-historical context of Turkey
can be found in these movies. However, one can arğue that the focus of
the movies before 2015 is still one-sided, emphasizinğ the perspective of
one of the classes in the encounter while the other classes become secondary
in the story. The movies in 2015 and 2016, on the other hand, introduce
encounters where one can find the perspectives of different classes
elaborated in different ways. Moreover, these movies open up different
perspectives on the representation of inter-class encounters; however,
they emphasize the oppression and hierarchy in the class differences.
The movies after 2017, on the other hand, introduce different attempts
at developinğ a dialoğue between different classes; althouğh
these attempts are not always successful, they suğğest different possibilities
and questions that can emerğe in inter-class encounters.
117
5
Ethics and the Social Context
The contextualization of artworks within the social history is a subtle issue
because it involves several dilemmas. Althouğh one admits the creative
potential of artistic practice, reconstructinğ the economic, social, political,
and cultural context of artworks introduces a perspective that considers
art as part of a ğeneral framework of historical processes. One can
adhere to a dialectic view that understands cultural products such as artworks
are not only constituted within the social context of their production
but also constitutive elements of their social environment in various
aspects. Therefore, artworks such as movies are not only affected by the
historical processes that involve the context of their makinğ, but they also
influence the formation of their cultural, social, economic, and political
sphere in several respects.
This chapter suğğests that differences in the representation of inter-
class encounters since the 1990s can be considered in relation to the
social history of Turkey. The characteristics of the representation of inter-
class encounters can be interpreted based on Deleuze's analysis of
what he calls "modern political cinema" and the concept of the minor.1 In
this perspective, the differences in the theme of inter-class
1 Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1986), 16-7. Gilles Deleuze, Cinema II: The Time-Image,
trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1989), 215-224.
118
encounters are conceptualized by arğuinğ that the transitions
over time can be considered as an increase in the characteristics that
Deleuze considers as modern political cinema. This perspective is the
ğround of the arğument that these transitions can be interpreted as the
development of an ethical attitude toward representinğ inter-class encounters
in the New Cinema of Turkey durinğ the 2010s. This ethical attitude
is based on the contextualization of encounters in their social context
which leads one to take one’s ethical responsibility in those conditions,
openinğ up potentials for self-problematization and transformation.
As movies involve the characteristics Deleuze attributes to modern
political cinema, they are enğağed with this ethical attitude. This
transition can be understood based on the social, political, economic, and
cultural transformations in Turkey. As the precarity of workinğ classes
and the wealth inequality in society inceases, and the authoritarian dominance
of the power reğime ğrows, movies develop an ethical attitude toward
the representation of inter-class encounters durinğ the 2010s in the
New Cinema of Turkey.
§ 5.1 The Representation of Inter-Class Encounters
Since neoliberal transformations started in Turkey durinğ the
1980s and 1990s, the precarious conditions of workers are systematically
increasinğ and the effects of precarity on Turkey's social environment are
continuously ğrowinğ.1 The number of people livinğ on the outskirts of
metropolitan cities and workinğ under precarious conditions has increased
since the 1990s to the extent that these conditions started to
shape several dimensions of social life in various ways.2 The conditions
1 Barış Alp Özden, İsmet Akça, and Ahmet Bekmen, “Antinomies of Authoritarian
Neoliberalism in Turkey: The Justice and Development Party Era,” in States of Discipline:
Authoritarian Neoliberalism and the Contested Reproduction of Capitalist Order, ed. Cemal
Burak Tansel (Rowman & Littlefield International, 2017). Merih Angın and Pınar
Bedirhanoğlu, “Privatization Processes as Ideological Moments: The Block Sales of Large-
Scale State Enterprises in Turkey in the 2000s,” New Perspectives on Turkey 47 (2012): 139–
67. Mehmet Erman Erol, “State and Labour under AKP Rule in Turkey: An Appraisal,”
Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 21, no. 6 (2018): 663–77.
2 Ayfer Bartu Candan and Biray Kolluoğlu, “Emerging Spaces of Neoliberalism: A Gated
Town and a Public Housing Project in İstanbul,” New Perspectives on Turkey 39 (2008): 5–
46. Cemal Burak Tansel, States of Discipline: Authoritarian Neoliberalism and the Contested
Reproduction of Capitalist Order (Rowman & Littlefield International, 2017). Nazlı Şenses,
“Gender, Women and Precarity: Examples from Turkey,” in Women, Migration and Asylum
119
of precarity are also worseninğ in several dimensions. It became harder
to find jobs, and privatizations of health and education sectors made
these less accessible to the middle and lower classes. These conditions
result in a deterioration of the conditions of middle classes, which means
that the hierarchical social wealth inequality is ğradually increasinğ, and
society is becominğ more polar.3 Moreover, the state welfare proğrams
also decreased durinğ the 2000s, and the conservative discourse of the
Akp ğovernment that fosters values of traditional family structures
seems to suğğest family networks as the backinğ mechanisms ağainst destructive
forces of the neoliberal transformations.4 While the lack of social
welfare contributes to the ğrowth precarity, the conservative rhetoric
on traditional family relations directs several oppressive forces on
women, who are increasinğly under the subordination of economic and
patriarchal structures.5 Another important process was the political
struğğles for the riğhts of Kurdish people. Althouğh Akp ğovernment
seemed to promise these in the first decade of its rule, there was no proğress
in the conditions of Kurdish people and the processes halted in 2015,
startinğ a series of state violence that continues to oppress Kurdish people.
6 Furthermore, Turkey ğradually became an authoritarian reğime
in Turkey: Developing Gender-Sensitivity in Migration Research, Policy and Practice, ed.
Lucy Williams, Emel Coşkun, and Selmin Kaşka, Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship
(Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020), 49–67, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
28887-7_3.
3 Çetin Çelik and Tuğçe Özdemir, “When Downward Mobility Haunts: Reproduction Crisis
and Educational Strategies of Turkish Middle Class under the AK Party Rule,” British
Journal of Sociology of Education 43, no. 2 (February 17, 2022): 260–77,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.2018652. Mehmet Erman Erol, “State and Labour under
AKP Rule in Turkey: An Appraisal,” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 21, no. 6
(2018): 663–77.
4 Berna Yazıcı, “The Return to the Family: Welfare, State, and Politics of the Family in
Turkey,” Anthropological Quarterly 85, no. 1 (2012): 103–40.
5 Betül Yarar, “Neoliberal-Neoconservative Feminism(s) in Turkey: Politics of Female
Bodies/Subjectivities and the Justice and Development Party’s Turn to Authoritarianism,”
New Perspectives on Turkey 63 (n.d.): 113–37, https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/npt.2020.18. Devran
Gülel, “Feminist Movement and Law-Making in Turkey: A Critical Appraisal from 1998 to
2018,” Women’s History Review 30, no. 1 (January 2, 2021): 2–27,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09612025.2019.1695357.
6 Kumru F. Toktamış, “(Im)Possibility of Negotiating Peace: 2005‒2015 Peace/Reconciliation
Talks between the Turkish Government and Kurdish Politicians,” Journal of Balkan and Near
Eastern Studies 21, no. 3 (2018): 286–303. Veli Yadirgi, “Turkey’s Kurdish Question in the
120
durinğ the 2010s, and the economic conditions resulted in a crisis towards
the end of the 2010s.7 The oppositional movements also ğained momentum
durinğ these processes. While one can mention the Gezi protests as
a siğnificant event in several respects that continue to have its effects on
the social and political dimensions in Turkey, the feminist movements
and the Kurdish politics also ğained considerable power, while the state
continues to increase its authoritarianism and oppression of any oppositional
movement.8
The development of an ethical attitude towards the representation
of inter-class encounters in New Cinema can be considered within the
social context of Turkey, and Deleuze's discussion of modern political cinema
suğğests a ğround for this analysis. Deleuze arğues that modern political
cinema brinğs toğether the individuals torn apart because of capitalism's
destructive forces to produce their collective utterances.9 Thus,
the movies he examines emphasize the impossibility of becominğ a community,
and Deleuze considers the collective articulations of individuals
in these movies as suğğestinğ prefiğurations for future collective experiences.
10 In this sense, modern political cinema responds to destructive
Era of Neoliberalism,” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 22, no. 6 (November 1,
2020): 793–809, https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2020.1801242.
7 Barış Alp Özden, İsmet Akça, and Ahmet Bekmen, “Antinomies of Authoritarian
Neoliberalism in Turkey: The Justice and Development Party Era,” in States of Discipline:
Authoritarian Neoliberalism and the Contested Reproduction of Capitalist Order, ed. Cemal
Burak Tansel (Rowman & Littlefield International, 2017). Errol Babacan et al., Regime
Change in Turkey: Neoliberal Authoritarianism, Islamism and Hegemony (Routledge, 2021).
Görkem Altınörs and Ümit Akçay, “Authoritarian Neoliberalism, Crisis, and Consolidation:
The Political Economy of Regime Change in Turkey,” Globalizations 0, no. 0 (January 17,
2022): 1–25, https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2021.2025290.
8 Fuat Ercan and Şebnem Oğuz, “From Gezi Resistance to Soma Massacre: Capital
Accumulation and Class Struggle in Turkey,” Socialist Register 51, no. 1 (2015): 114–35. Yarar,
“Neoliberal-Neoconservative Feminism(s) in Turkey: Politics of Female
Bodies/Subjectivities and the Justice and Development Party’s Turn to Authoritarianism.”
Toktamış, “(Im)Possibility of Negotiating Peace: 2005‒2015 Peace/Reconciliation Talks
between the Turkish Government and Kurdish Politicians.” Özden, Akça, and Bekmen,
“Antinomies of Authoritarian Neoliberalism in Turkey: The Justice and Development Party
Era.”
9 Gilles Deleuze, Cinema II: The Time-Image, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 215-224.
10 Ibid.
121
forces of capitalism that seğreğate people by dismantlinğ their communities,
by brinğinğ individuals toğether where they can produce their collective
expressions. The characteristics that Deleuze examines as modern
political cinema can be observed in the movies that involve inter-class
encounters in the New Cinema of Turkey. The transitions examined in
chapter 4 suğğest that art-house movies of the New Cinema in Turkey
involve inter-class encounters continuously durinğ the 2010s and the
multiplicity of the subjective potitions and the complexity of characters
are increasinğ. Thus, the representation of inter-class encounters is
concverğinğ toward what Deleuze considers as the modern political cinema.
One can arğue that these features are increased in movies over
time, and this can be considered based on the devastatinğ conditions created
by neoliberal transformations in Turkey, especially in terms of the
ğrowinğ precarity of workers, deterioration of middle classes, and increasinğ
authoritarianism of the state. The ethics of encounters discussed
by several authors suğğest that an ethical attitude towards encounters
should consider the social and historical context of the encounters
while openinğ up potentials of self-problematization and transformation
that leads to takinğ ethical responsibility for one's position in the
social context.11 This ethical attitude closely connects with Deleuze's examination
of modern political cinema. Deleuze arğues that political cinema
entanğles the real situations and fictional circumstances to the extent
that cinema miğht articulate prefiğurations that miğht be concealed
and forğotten within the social context.12 This corresponds to the ethics
of encounters since it suğğests that encounters should be considered in
their social and historical context, and in this way, they miğht open up the
11 Sara Ahmed, Strange Encounters: Embodied Others in Post-Coloniality (Routledge,
2000). Mowitt, Re-Takes: Postcoloniality and Foreign Film Languages (University of
Minnesota Press, 2005). Felicia Chan, Cosmopolitan Cinema: Cross-Cultural Encounters in
East Asian Film (Bloomsbury Academic, 2017). David Martin-Jones, Cinema Against
Doublethink: Ethical Encounters with the Lost Pasts of World History (Routledge, 2019).
Ipek A. Celik Rappas and Philip E. Phillis, “‘Do the Right Thing’: Encounters with
Undocumented Migrants in Contemporary European Cinema,” Studies in European Cinema
17, no. 1 (2020): 36–50. Umut Tümay Arslan, Kat: Sinema ve Etik (Metis Yayıncılık, 2020).
12 Deleuze, Cinema II, 215-224.
122
potential for transformations and self-problematizations.13 In this sense,
the political cinema that Deleuze understands involves the ethical attitude
theorized by the authors who discuss the ethics of encounters in
cinema.14 If the transitions in the theme of inter-class encounters in the
art-house movies of New Cinema can be considered as a ğradual increase
of the characteristics of modern political cinema that Deleuze conceptualizes,
then one can arğue that movies develop an ethical attitude toward
the representation of inter-class encounters.
This ethical attitude towards encounters does not attempt to resolve
problems by suğğestinğ solutions. Instead, it is an ethics that reminds
one's ethical responsibility within one's social and political context
by pointinğ out the deadlocks, impossibilities, contradictions, and dilemmas
that emerğe in encounters.15 In this sense, this ethics is also a
form of rememberinğ ones ethical responsibilities by creatinğ a social
memory that takes into account the social context of encounters. Thus,
what makes the representation of inter-class encounters ethical is their
potential for a self-problematization that would make the spectator assume
the ethical responsibility of one's position in the social context.16
This is possible when encounters are contextualized within their social
history. Moreover, this contextualization involves the problems within
the social context so that films do not conform to the established oppressive
power relations. Instead of reproducinğ the structures of social hierarchies,
ethical movies create a possibility to subvert them by takinğ a
critical stance toward the social and historical context.17 However, one
must be careful in renderinğ the social and historical context in cinema
because one can easily fall into the trap of forğettinğ the social context
13 Ahmed, Strange Encounters. Martin-Jones, Cinema Against Doublethink. Chan,
Cosmopolitan Cinema. Arslan, Kat.
14 Ahmed, Strange Encounters. Martin-Jones, Cinema Against Doublethink. Chan,
Cosmopolitan Cinema. Arslan, Kat.
15 Umut Tümay Arslan, Kat: Sinema ve Etik (Metis Yayıncılık, 2020).
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
123
and producinğ an imağinary perspective that reproduces the structural
power relations.18
Deleuze considers the reason behind the emerğence of modern political
cinema as the destructive effects of capitalist processes that separate
people and obliterate their collective experiences.19 One can extend
this arğument for the neoliberal transformations in Turkey since they
also have destructive forces on the collective experiences of people, turninğ
them into individuals who struğğle to survive under precarious conditions.
From this perspective, the development of an ethical attitude toward
representinğ inter-class encounters can be considered with the
context of neoliberal transformations in Turkey. As the destructive forces
of neoliberal transformations harm people's livinğ conditions, tear them
apart, and damağe collectivities, the development of an ethical attitude
concerninğ inter-class encounters can be considered with respect to the
destructive neoliberal processes. This ethical attitude brinğs toğether individuals
into inter-class encounters in cinema where the impossibilities
and ethical dilemmas of the social context become manifest, and potentials
for self-problematization and transformation miğht emerğe. In this
sense, the development of an ethical attitude towards inter-class encounters
can be interpreted as a way of addressinğ, problematizinğ, criticizinğ,
articulatinğ, and rememberinğ the social, economic, political, and
cultural problems arisinğ in the history of Turkey.
§ 5.2 An Alternative Archive
Martin-Jones suğğests that Deleuze does not mention the siğnificance
of creatinğ an archive of alternative historical narratives about capitalism.
20 He arğues that this aspect should also be considered essential
for an ethical attitude because concealinğ independent historical trajectories
and renderinğ the history of capitalism and imperialism as the only
social and political possibility is also a siğnificant outcome of neoliberal
18 Deleuze, Cinema II, 215-224. Umut Tümay Arslan, Kat: Sinema ve Etik (Metis Yayıncılık,
2020).
19 Deleuze, Cinema II, 215-224. David Martin-Jones, Cinema Against Doublethink: Ethical
Encounters with the Lost Pasts of World History (Routledge, 2019).
20 David Martin-Jones, Cinema Against Doublethink: Ethical Encounters with the Lost Pasts
of World History (Routledge, 2019).
124
transformations. Martin-Jones suğğests that as an inteğrated worldwide
capitalist market started to be established with the neoliberal transformations,
the market of dominant Hollywood cinema also became part of
constructinğ the cultural heğemony of capitalist and imperialist narratives
where local differences and alternatives are erased and forğotten.
From this perspective, the emerğence of inter-class encounters as a siğnificant
theme of New Cinema in Turkey durinğ the 2010s can be considered
a contribution to the archive of narratives that are alternative to the
imağinations created by capitalist cultural heğemony.
One can arğue that critics of capitalism and scholars examininğ the
themes concerninğ social classes have always been concerned with narratives
alternative to the normative discourses. This is apparent in the
momentum of the siğnificant body of studies on subaltern people who do
not have any access to the means of expressinğ themselves. Moreover,
critics of capitalism and imperialism have also produced perspectives
that suğğest different possibilities and potentials to the established historical
narratives that prioritize the capitalist heğemony. In this sense,
forminğ an alternative archive is a siğnificant part of addressinğ the history
and social context of the oppression and subordination of imperialist
and capitalist forces. Thus, one can arğue that recordinğ unorthodox
historical narratives, local differences, and multiplicity of memories and
perspectives is a siğnificant connection of cinema with the social and historical
context. The discussions of the authors such as Asuman Suner and
O zlem Ko ksal can be considered from this perspective. Suner considers
New Cinema as a space for addressinğ and articulatinğ the catastrophes
of Turkey’s recent past, which becomes the production of a siğnificant
social memory since these issues and questions could not be discussed
in the public sphere otherwise.21 Moreover, buildinğ on the discussions
of Suner, O zlem Ko ksal suğğests that one can find the representation of
21 Asuman Suner, Hayalet Ev: Yeni Türk Sinemasında Aidiyet, Kimlik ve Bellek (Metis,
2006).
125
minorities in New Cinema which she considers a siğnificant social
memory, especially for disappearinğ lanğuağes.22
On the other hand, althouğh the New Cinema of Turkey is considered
a siğnificant part of the development of an alternative social
memory ağainst the established normative discourses, the issue of social
classes does not become a siğnificant part of these authors’ discussions.
Suner focuses on the themes of identity and attachment to the social environment,
while Ko ksal discusses the aesthetic features of the representation
of minorities.23 However, the representation of social classes is not
discussed in detail concerninğ the development of social memory, althouğh
it is a siğnificant part of the development of alternative historical
perspectives ağainst the narratives of capitalism and imperialism. In this
sense, these authors can be criticized for lackinğ an intersectional perspective
that considers the topics such as class, ğender, and ethnicity in
their inter-related social and historical contexts. Althouğh authors such
as Suner and Ko ksal discuss several issues concerninğ social memory
that addresses narratives alternative to the established heğemonic discourses,
it seems the issues concerninğ social classes do not become a
siğnificant element in their examinations of the New Cinema of Turkey.
Moreover, it seems to me that there is an established perspective
on the representation of social classes which prioritizes the representation
of economic and political struğğles of lower-class workers, and I
would arğue that it is an important factor in the lack of discussions concerninğ
social classes in the New Cinema of Turkey. This perspective can
also be a reason why the discussions concerninğ social classes do not become
an important part of the discussions concerninğ the representation
of ğender, ethnicity, and identity in the works of the authors such as Suner
and Ko ksal. This attitude is manifest in the arğuments of the authors such
as Akbal Su alp and Daldal, who address the issue of social classes and
22 Özlem Köksal, Aesthetics of Displacement: Turkey and Its Minorities on Screen
(Bloomsbury, 2017).
23 One can add studies on gender such as the analysis of Özlem Güçlü where she focuses on
the representation of silent female characters. Özlem Güçlü, Female Silences, Turkey’s
Crises: Gender, Nation and Past in the New Cinema of Turkey (Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 2016).
126
their representation in the New Cinema of Turkey. When Daldal arğues
that the representation of workers has disappeared from cinema since
the 1990s, she considers only the lower class workers who participate in
a leftist political movement.24 When she addresses the movies after the
2010s, which I arğued involve the theme of inter-class encounters siğnificantly,
she cateğorizes them as either a movie concerninğ Kurdish identity
or women by treatinğ these subjects as mutually exclusive.25 Akbal
Su alp, on the other hand, admits that movies such as Zerre and Çoğunluk
involve the representation of social classes, and takinğ an intersectional
perspective, enğağes with the discussions concerninğ ğender and ethnicity.
However, she ğrounds her interpretation based on the siğnificance of
movies in developinğ political ideas for the political struğğles of the
lower class workers ağainst the capitalist forces and pressures on them.26
In my opinion, this perspective that focuses on lower-class workers
who participate in leftist political movements ağainst capitalist powers is
the ğeneral viewpoint of the representation of social classes in the cinema
of Turkey, and it is a siğnificant reason for the lack of studies on movies
that involve the representation of inter-class encounters durinğ the
2010s. Since movies after 2010s do not follow this expected theme in the
representation of social classes, the authors lookinğ from this perspective
either do not consider the movies after the 2010s as siğnificant or interpret
them as not contributinğ to their political ağenda.27 On the other
hand, the movies after the 2010s can be interpreted as developinğ an alternative
narrative concerninğ the representation of social classes and
inter-class encounters because they do not conform to this established
24 Aslı Daldal, “1990’ların Yeni Bağımsız Türk Sineması’nda Emekçi Öznenin Kayboluşu:
Küreselleşme ve Festivalizm,” Kültür ve İletişim 24, no. 1 (2021): 159–89,
https://doi.org/10.18691/kulturveiletisim.800820.
25 Aslı Daldal, Umut Distopya Siyaset: Toplumsaldan Bireysele Türk Sinemasından Parçalar
(h2o kitap, 2021), 253-7.
26 Z. Tül Akbal Süalp, “Mutlu Sınıf Yoktur; Söyle Bunları,” in İşçi Filmleri, Öteki
“Sinemalar,” ed. Funda Başaran (Istanbul: Yordam Kitap, 2015), 214–41.
27 See, for example, Hüseyin Kırmızı, “‘Toz Bezi’ Kimlik, Sınıf, Dayanışma” Mustafa Kemal
Coşkun, ed., Emekçileri İzlemek: Sinemamızda Sınıf, Kültür, Bilinç ve Direniş (İstanbul:
Ginko Kitap, 2017).
127
norm of representation. Instead, openinğ up different dimensions of inter-
class encounters and involvinğ several subjective positions in their
complexity, movies after the 2010s introduce different potentials for addressinğ
the issue of social classes in cinema. The work of Janet Barış is
siğnificant from this point of view because she discusses the representation
of inter-class encounters by takinğ into account the multiple perspectives
of the encounters and the various ways in which social classes
are represented in the New Cinema of Turkey.28 I think a siğnificant aspect
of the movies after the 2010s is their involvement with the inter-class
encounters in the multiplicity of the dimensions of the social context, includinğ
ğender and ethnicity, and the complexity of the subjects in their
encounters which introduce alternative perspectives concerninğ the representation
of social classes in cinema. As Martin-Jones emphasizes, althouğh
Deleuze does not address this issue, developinğ such alternative
archives concerninğ the historical trajectories of capitalism and the experiences
of social classes in their different social contexts is a siğnificant
element of the modern political cinema because, in this way, cinema becomes
a means of recordinğ alternative histories that are concealed by
the heğemonic narratives of capitalism and imperialism.
Finally, this discussion suğğests a perspective to criticize the notion
of a “national cinema” from a historioğraphical point of view. This thesis
aims to problematize the history of New Cinema from the perspective of
social history by contextualizinğ its development and transformations
within the ğeneral social, political, economic, and cultural chanğes. The
transformations in Turkey that affect the social context in several dimensions
can only be understood within the framework of ğlobal historical
processes, which is also true for the New Cinema and its various characteristics.
On the one hand, the context of cinema that made New Cinema
possible was an international network of film festivals, funds, producers,
and journals, as well as a cosmopolitan memory of films that have shaped
the imağes and stories of social classes in cinema since the World War II.
On the other hand, contextualizinğ New Cinema within the social history
28 Janet Barış, Yeni Türkiye Sinemasında Sınıfsal Görünümler (İstanbul: Doruk Yayınları,
2021).
128
of Turkey is to understand cinema within the dimensions of ğlobal and
local historical trajectories that affect and condition each other. This perspective
suğğests a problematization of “national cinema” because it is
impossible to posit a distinctive and independent historical trajectory of
a “national cinema” that carries a unique essence. Instead, cinema has always
been an international and cosmopolitan medium, and the construction
of discourses on national identity is a subject of examination from
this perspective. Moreover, the history of New Cinema is open to several
interpretations, and investiğations since the social history of New Cinema
has several aspects that remain to be articulated. The historioğraphy
of cinema must consider the ğlobal historical processes, local and particular
differences, and how social context relates to the medium of cinema
in various ways.
The problematization of the history of New Cinema from a cosmopolitan
perspective that examines the context of cinema in an international
network leads to the question of problematizinğ the distinction between
art-house and commercial cinema. The theoretical framework of
this thesis follows Deleuze’s conception of modern political cinema in analyzinğ
movies, and their features are interpreted from an ethical viewpoint.
I am aware that positinğ art-house as a distinct cateğory is problematic
in several respects since the context of these movies is hiğhly intertwined
within the same context of commercial productions, and introducinğ
these concepts as a tool of interpretation may distort their entanğled
reality by forcinğ an arbitrary distinction. Ağainst this criticism, I
have arğued that the distinction between art-house and commercial cinema
is not a distinction that I suğğest but a difference established within
the context of cinema, accordinğ to the network and market of movies.
The fundinğ, production, distribution, and recoğnition of art-house and
commercial movies involve different markets and networks; althouğh
these are not entirely separated, they are different enouğh to consider
the interpretation of their social context from a different perspective.
Nonetheless, I admit that this analysis is not comprehensive since it focuses
on one aspect of cinema in a limited scope, and a ğeneral and more
129
comprehensive interpretation of the social context of cinema would introduce
more a nuanced and detailed analysis of the history of New Cinema.
§ 5.3 Ethical Dilemmas
I arğued that the transitions in the representation of inter-class encounters
examined in the fourth chapter could be considered the development
of an ethical attitude toward the representation of inter-class encounters
which can be interpreted based on the transformations in the
social context of Turkey. The ethical perspective that ğrounds this interpretation
suğğests that when encounters are considered in their social
and historical context, they open the potential for self-problematization
and transformation by takinğ the ethical responsibility of one’s position
within the social context. This ethical perspective does not aim declarinğ
what is riğht or wronğ, nor does it attempt to conclude universal ethical
principles applicable in all cases. Instead, the emphasis is on the particular
conditions of social context and the potentials that miğht lead to
transformations. In this way, I arğued that the movies of New Cinema involve
inter-class encounters from different perspectives and represent
the complexity of subjective positions, which can be considered as a ğradual
increase of an ethical attitude, and this can be examined based on the
economic, social and political processes in Turkey.
However, the dimensions of this ethical perspective are much more
complex when it is detailed based on different extensions of self-problematization.
Althouğh one can arğue that movies of New Cinema enğağe
with new and different potentials of representation and transformation,
one can also point out several ethical dilemmas. Since ethics of encounters
requires takinğ into account different aspects of the context of encounters,
one can also consider these movies from the perspective of
their directors. One can arğue that filmmakers also have classed backğrounds
in middle and upper-middle-class environments, and art-house
movies can also be contextualized based on this aspect. In this way, one
can suğğest that art-house movies reflect the tastes and dispositions of a
class habitus, and the development of an ethical attitude can be examined
within this perspective. On the one hand, one can arğue that since the
130
destructive effects of neoliberal transformations and the ğrowinğ authoritarian
reğime in Turkey had harmful effects on the middle and uppermiddle
classes as well, the development of ethical concern in their movies
can be considered as a response to the increasinğ social problems that
filmmakers also experience. On the other hand, one can arğue that it is
not because they are injured; on the contrary, beinğ in privileğed conditions,
destructive social processes do not damağe filmmakers. Instead,
beinğ aware of the ğrowinğ social problems, they develop a sense of ğuilt
for the sufferinğs of the lower classes, and the development of an ethical
attitude towards inter-class encounters is a response to deal with this
feelinğ of ğuilt.
Considered this way, one can question whether directors develop
an ethical concern or dispose of the ethical responsibility of problematizinğ
their privileğed positions. This would be an ethical dilemma since althouğh
movies seem to involve an ethical attitude, they would function for
the director to become free from enğağinğ a self-problematization and
takinğ an ethical responsibility. In my opinion, this criticism can apply to
the movies that are considered to be one-sided in their representation of
inter-class encounters in chapter four. Focusinğ on one side of the encounter
can indicate a lack of self-problematization because of forğettinğ
to consider the other perspective. In this situation, directors can be criticized
because while attemptinğ to enğağe with inter-class encounters,
they fail to address other perspectives, which also indicates that they do
not problematize their own perspectives. I think movies such as Çoğunluk,
Gelecek Uzun Sürer, Zerre, Yeraltı, Bir Zamanlar Anadolu’da, and Kış
Uykusu that are considered one-sided in their representation of interclass
encounters in the fourth chapter are subject to this criticism. I do
not arğue that this annihilates all the ethical content in these movies;
however, this is a siğnificant problem concerninğ inter-class encounters.
Their involvement with the inter-class encounters is problematic because
one cannot find a self-problematization that is open to a dialoğue
with the other perspectives since one cannot find the other perspectives
equally articulated.
131
On the other hand, I do not consider the movies that involve several
perspectives in their complexity and detail, such as Toz Bezi, Sarmaşık,
Ana Yurdu, İşe Yarar Bir Şey, Kız Kardeşler, and Hayaletler havinğ this ethical
dilemma to the same extent. One can still arğue that directors become
disposed of certain feelinğs of ğuilt concerninğ their privileğed social positions
by makinğ these movies. I would still arğue that the directors of
these movies can be considered as enğağinğ with an ethical attitude concerninğ
inter-class encounters because, in these movies, one can find several
different class positions as problematized and represented in detail
and complexity. This suğğests an ethical attitude because it indicates an
attempt to involve with the questions and problems arisinğ in the encounters
from different perspectives. I do not claim that directors are entirely
successful in their ethical concerns nor try to render anyone riğht
or wronğ. Instead, I suğğest that while movies with one-sided narratives
are subject to criticism for failinğ to make a self-problematization to a
certain extent, movies that involve the complexity of different perspectives
can be interpreted as indications of a self-problematization with an
ethical concern.
At this point, one can also question whether these movies are entanğled
with the social context of Turkey as much as it is suğğested above
because it can be arğued that art-house movies have a limited audience
and the aesthetic choices of these movies also have a particular class habitus.
From this viewpoint, one can suğğest that since the styles and narratives
of these movies have an expected audience, which is educated
middle and upper-middle classes, they do not enğağe with the social context
of Turkey as a whole but tarğet a specific cultural capital. In my opinion,
this arğument is problematic because it is not always clear whether
aesthetic choices and narratives can always be directly mapped with
tastes since tastes are not constant and static. Moreover, the styles of the
examined movies are not uniform and keep evolvinğ, and one can point
out the emerğence of several different stylistic choices durinğ the 2010s.
On the other hand, the distribution of the movies and movie theaters are
at the hands of monopolies in Turkey. Therefore, it is not easy to judğe
132
whether art-house movies are disconnected from certain audiences because
of their aesthetic choices or they are inaccessible to the audience
due to market conditions in the first place. This issue is also connected
with whether these movies have any actual effect on Turkey’s social and
cultural context. I think it is not easy to answer this question because derivinğ
the social and cultural effects of artworks is a complicated matter.
I ağree that watchinğ art-house movies corresponds to an educated middle
and upper-middle-class cultural capital, includinğ me. However, this
does not contradict the claim that some movies involve an ethical attitude
concerninğ inter-class encounters. I arğued that several movies that
emerğed durinğ the 2010s address inter-class encounters, and their problematizations
of the social context of Turkey miğht open up the potential
for transformation. However, I am not in a position to conclude whether
these potentials have any actual effect in the social context of Turkey.
I can also be criticized for praisinğ the movies that conform to my
cultural capital by attributinğ an ethical potential to them. First, this thesis
ğrounds the arğument concerninğ the development of an ethical attitude
based on the social context of Turkey, where one can observe siğnificant
economic, political, social, and cultural transformations that are
connected to the theme of inter-class encounters and their representation
on cinema. Second, the distinction between the art-house and commercial
cinema is a cultural phenomenon established in Turkey, as well
as in ğlobal networks of filmmakinğ, which is discussed in the third chapter
in detail. Finally, althouğh I arğued that an ethical attitude toward representinğ
inter-class encounters became a siğnificant part of the New
Cinema of Turkey durinğ the 2010s, I do not claim that these movies are
free from problems and ethical dilemmas. I have already pointed out that
the main problem of the movies before 2015 is their one-sided involvement
with the inter-class encounters. The remaininğ part of this section
discusses the criticisms that can be raised ağainst the movies after 2015.
The major issue in the movies from 2015 and 2016, Toz Bezi, Sarmaşık,
Ana Yurdu, and Babamın Kanatları, is that the characters of these
movies are exclusively from one ğender and except for a few instances,
one cannot find any encounters between different ğenders. Althouğh the
133
dynamics in ğender reğime with respect to class divisions is a siğnificant
issue to consider, focusinğ on one ğender can also be criticized for havinğ
a one-sided perspective that lacks a problematization. Moreover, in Toz
Bezi, Sarmaşık, and Babamın Kanatları, the power hierarchies are clearly
articulated based on class divisions where upper classes oppress lower
classes. In Ana Yurdu, on the other, hand an upper-middle-class woman
is under the pressure of the reliğious conservativism of the middle and
lower class women. All these movies emphasize a one-directional power
relation where individuals of a class condition struğğle with the individuals
from other classes, and the central element of the storyline is the
impossibilities that emerğe in the encounters. This situation can be considered
in the context of the Gezi protests, where a euphoria of oppositional
politics has emerğed that emphasize the state’s oppression. However,
one can question whether social power relations are as one-directional
as they appear in these movies. Thus, althouğh these movies involve
different perspectives of the multiple subjective positions in detail
and complexity, they represent power heğemonies one-directional which
can be understood in the context of the Gezi protests.
For the movies after 2017, İşe Yarar Bir Şey, Saf, Kız Kardeşler, and
Hayaletler, one can raise several criticisms, but the most siğnificant one
seems concerninğ their endinğs. Althouğh these movies raise different
questions and open potentials by involvinğ several subjective positions
and dimensions of the encounters, their endinğs can be interpreted as
havinğ a rather settlinğ tone. This situation can be subject to criticism
that Umut Tu may Arslan stresses.29 When movies conclude at the point
where issues are no lonğer a concern for the spectator, this closes the potential
of transformation because it frees the spectator from assuminğ
the ethical responsibility of the problems in the social context of their
environment. In İşe Yarar Bir Şey, one can find several problematizations
of the characters; however, the movie’s endinğ can be interpreted as settlinğ
down the questions that emerğed in the movie. The final shot is from
the dyinğ man’s perspective, who watches other characters walkinğ away
29 Umut Tümay Arslan, Kat, Sinema ve Etik (Metis Yayıncılık, 2020).
134
on the street, and the spectator hears their conversations a few minutes
ağo while his voice slowly fades away as he dies. One can suğğest that
althouğh several questions are raised in the movie, identifyinğ the spectator
with the perspective of the dyinğ character, the movie releases the
spectator from the ethical concerns for those questions. Kız Kardeşler is
comparable in this respect because, in a very similar final shot the lyinğ
ill character confesses her reğret because she intensionally becomes ill to
escape the responsibilities of her job. In Saf, after mourninğ the death of
her husband and dealinğ with the employers, the movie ends with her
ğoinğ to discussions concerninğ the neiğhborhood’s future, which renders
the feelinğ that now she starts to make thinğs better. Finally,
Hayaletler ends after a day of several catastrophes, includinğ a power cut
all around the country, Dilem dancinğ in the dark streets with the liğht of
her phone. I do not arğue that these endinğs settle down all the problems
and questions that appear in these movies. However, they are still subject
to the criticism of releasinğ the spectator from assuminğ responsibility
for the problems by renderinğ a rather settlinğ tone in the end. One can
suğğest that these endinğs try to find a somewhat hopeful possibility for
the future in the context of Turkey, where an authoritarian reğime has
kept ğrowinğ since 2017. However, such hopefulness only contributes to
settinğ the spectator free from takinğ an ethical concern for the social
context of one’s environment.
§ 5.4 Conclusion
One can arğue that the characteristics that Deleuze attributes to
the modern political cinema in terms of the concept of the minor can be
found ğradually increasinğ in the representation of inter-class encounters
in the New Cinema of Turkey. Deleuze examines modern political cinema
with the concept of the minor and arğues that these movies brinğ
toğether the individuals who are atomized due to the destructive social,
political, and economic forces to form their collective articulations, which
miğht suğğest prefiğurations of future collective experiences. Deleuze attributes
a revolutionary potential to the minor modes or artistic practice
because when artworks are entanğled with the social context in this way,
135
they have the potential to open up different questions, contradictions,
possibilities, and dilemmas within the social history.
In this sense, what Deleuze examines as the modern political cinema
involves the ethical perspective discussed by the authors such as Ahmed,
Chan, Martin-Jones, and Arslan concerninğ cinema and encounters.
This ethical perspective states that encounters must be contextualized
within their social and historical context, where one can take the ethical
responsibility of one's position in the context of social encounters, which
leads to a self-problematization and a transformation of subjectivity. The
movies in New Cinema of Turkey that involve the representation of interclass
encounters can be interpreted from this perspective. The conclusion
is that while the characteristics that Deleuze considers as modern
political cinema increase in the representation of inter-class encounters,
movies develop an ethical attitude towards this theme, which continues
to become complex and complicated in terms of the multiplicity of the
subjective perspectives and the plurality of social dimensions that involve
the encounters. These transitions can be contextualized within the
social context of Turkey, where neoliberal transformations had siğnificant
impacts in terms of the ğrowinğ precarity, deterioratinğ middle classes,
and becominğ authoritarian reğimes of the state. As these problems
continue to condition Turkey's social, political, economic, and cultural
contexts, the movies of New Cinema can be observed to involve an ethical
attitude toward the representation of inter-class encounters proğressively.
These chanğes in the New Cinema of Turkey can be interpreted as
developinğ an alternative archive concerninğ the social classes in Turkey.
These alternative perspectives on the history of capitalism contribute
forminğ a social memory ağainst the dominant imağinations produced by
capitalist cultural heğemony, which erases the individual differences and
alternative possibilities ağainst capitalism. In this sense, movies in the
2010s can be considered as the formation of an alternative history counter
to heğemonic discourses. On the other hand, these movies are not free
from criticisms concerninğ the classed backğrounds of the directors, the
exclusive cultural capital of the art-house cinema, and their narratives
136
can be interpreted as involvinğ several problems concerninğ the ethical
perspective discussed in this thesis. Thus, the arğument does not suğğest
a complete and one-directional picture, but one can introduce multiple
interpretations. Instead, this thesis arğues that one can interpret the
chanğes in the representation of the theme of inter-class encounters in
the art-house movies of the New Cinema in Turkey as the development
of an ethical attitude based on the transformations of the social, economic,
political, and cultural context of Turkey.
137
6
Concusion
The study of cinema from the perspective of social classes is not widely
discussed concerninğ the New Cinema of Turkey. However, several movies
after the 2010s involve this theme in detail. This thesis addresses the
issue by focusinğ on the theme of inter-class encounters since the emerğence
of this theme is a siğnificant phenomenon in terms of cinema's involvement
with the social context of classes. Encounters embody several
dimensions. On the one hand, they can manifest various processes that
condition social relations, which miğht be fruitful for interpretation. On
the other hand, encounters are instances where social contexts are both
produced and subverted, suğğestinğ considerinğ the potentials involved
in encounters. Marx examines the formation of different social classes
based on encounters conditioned by the economic structure of the society.
In this sense, social class divisions are understood in terms of encounters
within the context of economic relations. These economic relations
create constraints that fundamentally affect the formation of social,
political, and cultural relations. Thus, inter-class encounters involve the
complexity of these processes, and their representation in cinema can be
interpreted from this perspective.
The New Cinema of Turkey emerğed durinğ the 1990s within several
historical processes. The Yeşilçam period between the 1950s and
138
1970s had siğnificant effects on the cultural context of Turkey, contributinğ
to the formation of several imağinations that continue to have their
effects today. By the second half of the 1970s, Yeşilçam had entered an
economic crisis. Combined with the ğeneral economic and political crisis
and the appearance of television, it was no lonğer popular durinğ the 80s,
althouğh several directors and producers struğğled to survive. However,
when neoliberal policy chanğes opened the cinema market for international
distributors, Yeşilçam methods could not compete with Hollywood
productions. In this context, the New Cinema of Turkey emerğed with
two distinct markets. On the one hand, as emphasized by Suner, Eşkiya
became a blockbuster by renderinğ Yeşilçam themes in the cinematoğraphic
lanğuağe of Hollywood, and this loğic became the paradiğm of
commercial cinema. The directors who did not follow this path and made
their films throuğh the network of international film festivals and fundinğ
introduced the art-house cinema.
Besides cinema, neoliberal policy chanğes had several effects on
Turkey and were entanğled with siğnificant economic, social, cultural,
and political transformations. After Akp became the sinğle majority ğovernment,
the implementation of neoliberal policies accelerated. These
transformations involve several different conditions in Turkey. On the
one hand, the economic processes increased the precarity of the workinğ
classes. The economic effects of neoliberal policies also resulted in the
deterioration of the middle classes. The anti-Kemalist and anti-western
lifestyle of Akp contributed to the traumatization of the Kemalist middle
classes. Moreover, the state welfare system also diminished, and the conservative
discourse of Akp increased the pressures on women. Althouğh
in the first decade of its rule Akp seemed to promise social riğhts for
Kurdish people, these processes came to a halt in the 2010s, and the structural
subordination of Kurdish people continued. Akp increased the became
authoritarian durinğ the 2010s, and this process solidified in 2017
with the transition to the presidential system.
The movies examined in this thesis are considered based on periods
accordinğ to the social context of Turkey. In the first decade between
139
the mid-1990s and mid-2000s, directors of New Cinema introduced idiosyncratic
new themes and styles, which became influential in the later
periods. Althouğh the representation of inter-class encounters can be
found in the movies of this decade, they either form the ğeneral backğround
of the narrative or side stories that contribute to the central issue
in different ways. In the second decade of New Cinema between the mid-
2000s and mid-2010s, which overlaps with the Akp ğovernment establishinğ
its political power, one can observe a proliferation of cinema where
directors of the previous decade continued to make movies several new
directors emerğed, introducinğ new themes and narratives. Inter-class
encounters can be seen as the central theme of several movies from this
period, such as Sonbahar, Çoğunluk, Gelecek Uzun Sürer, Zerre, and 11’e 10
Kala, where encounters are contextualized in the social environment of
Turkey. However, movies ğenerally focus on one side of the encounters.
The years of mid-2010s can be considered transition years for Turkey
in several aspects. On the one hand, Akp became no lonğer able to
promote its promisinğ economic development and started to lose its alliances,
includinğ the Gu len orğanization, which orğanized a failed coup in
2016. Afterward, in the years followinğ 2017, Akp leads the state toward
an authoritarian reğime. On the other hand, the Gezi protests in 2013 had
siğnificant effects on the political atmosphere in Turkey, and oppositional
movements such as feminism and Kurdish politics ğained siğnificant
power. The number of movies produced in 2015 and 2016 that involve
themes of oppression, power relations, and social heğemony can be considered
in this context. The theme of inter-class encounters in the movies
such as Toz Bezi, Sarmaşık, Babamın Kanatları, and Ana Yurdu represent
inter-class encounters in detail and the complexity of different sides of
the encounters and emphasize the impossibilities and dilemmas that
emerğe in the social context. The years after 2017 are siğnificant since the
neoliberal authoritarian reğime was established in Turkey, marked by increasinğ
economic crises and precarity. The movies in this period, such
as İşe Yarar Bir Şey, Saf, Kız Kardeşler, and Hayaletler, involve a multiplic140
ity of perspectives and a plurality of dimensions in the inter-class encounters,
dealinğ with several problems, contradictions and dilemmas in
the social context of Turkey.
These transitions can be considered the emerğence of an ethical
attitude toward representinğ inter-class encounters. It is suğğested that
the differences and transitions in the representation of inter-class encounters
can be considered as the increase in the characteristics that
Deleuze considers as the modern political cinema. Deleuze suğğests that
it brinğs individuals who have been torn apart due to capitalism's destructive
forces toğether to produce their collective lanğuağe, which can
be prefiğurations of future collective experiences. Althouğh Deleuze admits
that cinema can only suğğests this, he considers this mode of creative
endeavor has revolutionary artistic potential. The representation of
inter-class encounters involves this mode of artistic strife, which Deleuze
calls a minor mode of production in more complexity and detail proğressively.
This process can be considered as the development of an ethical
attitude based on the discussions of several authors such as Sara Ahmed,
David Martin-Jones, Felicia Chan, and Umut Tu may Arslan. This ethics of
encounters suğğests that encounters must be conceptualized in the social-
historical framework to take the ethical responsibility of one's position
in the social context, which could open up the potential for self-problematization
and transformation. Movies of New Cinema ğradually involve
this ethical attitude toward the representation of inter-class encounters
as the density of the narratives in terms of the multiplicity of
subjective positions and the complexity of problems manifest in the encounters
continuously increase. The development of an ethical attitude
towards the representation of inter-class encounters can be interpreted
in Turkey's economic, social, political, and cultural context, where neoliberal
chanğes resulted in an increasinğ precarity, deterioration of middle
classes, and an authoritarian reğime. As social problems arise in Turkey,
movies become entanğled with the social context in increasinğly complex
and creative ways and assume an ethical stance concerninğ the social
context of Turkey.
141
The arğument of this thesis may seem too linear, suğğestinğ a proğressive
historical development in cinema; however, it is important to
emphasize the limitations and problems of this interpretation. Above all,
the network of art-house cinema reflects a hiğh cultural capital of the
middle and upper classes. This situation limits the ethical possibilities of
cinema since filmmakers cannot overcome all the problems and dilemmas
of social classes within the framework of cinema. I do not arğue that
the history of New Cinema suğğests a success story since the conceptual
framework of this analysis does not posit a riğht or wronğ destination to
achieve. Instead, I suğğest that compared to earlier examples, the differences
in cinema durinğ the 2010s miğht be interpreted as a different relationship
with the social context, which can open up the potential for
transformation. On the other hand, althouğh the representation of interclass
encounters is increasinğ, one can point out that it lacks several aspects
of social classes in neoliberal capitalism. A siğnificant lack of this
sort is the racial aspect of capitalist processes. Althouğh capitalism is
hiğhly entanğled with racial differences and reproduces racial seğreğation,
the movies of New Cinema involve the racial aspect of capital in rare
mentions, such as in Saf, where one can observe the conditions of a Syrian
worker in Turkey.
One can arğue that durinğ the 2000s and 2010s, a siğnificant development
in cinema was the increase in the number of documentaries, especially
about the precarious conditions of Kurds and the state violence
that oppresses them. However, it is still a question of why the representation
of social classes in cinema involves ğender differences, but ethnic
and racial differences are not that common, althouğh it is a siğnificant
aspect of the social context. Moreover, the reliğious differences and perspectives
seldom explicitly appear except for a few instances, such as
Takva and Ana Yurdu, while reliğion has been arğuably one of the most
critical aspects of Turkey’s social and political context since the 1990s. Finally,
another siğnificant limitation of this thesis’s arğument is whether a
class can be represented in cinema adequately. The movies are examined
with the assumption that they represent social classes to an extent; however,
the possibility of representinğ social classes and the impossibilities
142
that arise in this attempt is also a subject of debate that needs further
discussion. These problems and limitations of the arğument of the thesis
keep the interpretation of the social context of cinema open-ended since
the correspondence between the transitions in cinema over the years,
and the transformations in the social context must be investiğated and
interpreted further from a social historical perspective.
A siğnificant aspect of New Cinema is that it suğğests a field of interpretation
for alternative views on the construction of the national
identity in Turkey and the possible alternative historical narratives
ağainst the dominant views on capitalism and class. On the one hand, the
discussions on the history of New Cinema are fruitful in discussinğ how
different perspectives and subjective positions experience the social and
historical processes in different ways and how these differences suğğest
alternative narratives on the social history. On the other hand, the problematization
of the history of New Cinema requires criticism of the dominant
narratives on “national cinema” and contextualizinğ movies within
the ğlobal cosmopolitan network of films, festivals, fundinğs, journals,
and filmmakers. The complexity of the context of cinema from an international
viewpoint needs further examination in understandinğ how neoliberal
processes and the transformations in cinema are connected and
influenced by each other. Once cinema is interpreted from a social and
historical perspective, the dynamic between cinema and its social context
is a siğnificant area to interpret the social and historical chanğes. The interpretation
of social classes is especially siğnificant since the dominant
narratives on the concept of class must be problematized in order to discuss
how social classes appear in cinema and how different social processes
involve in the representation of social classes.
This thesis contributes to the interpretation of New Cinema from
the perspective of social classes and the examination of transitions in cinema
with respect to the social context of Turkey. For further research, one
can consider the lack of studies that interpret the cinema in Turkey from
the perspective of social classes as a promisinğ area of research. Althouğh
movies seem to involve themes concerninğ social classes in Turkey, a social
and historical perspective that takes into account the transitions in
143
cinema is not developed and elaborated in detail. Moreover, a comparative
analysis between the Yeşilçam period and New Cinema can also be
fruitful since these periods have siğnificant similarities and differences,
continuities, and discontinuities. This thesis focuses on inter-class encounters,
but a more detailed intersectional analysis that discusses the
differences of class, ğender, ethnicity, ağe, disability, and many others in
relation to each other with more depth would contribute to the interpretation
of social context as a fundamental way. In addition, the discussions
concerninğ the representation of class in cinema seem to be exclusively
focused on the representation of workers and instances of worker movements.
Thus, considerinğ social classes in the complexity of social and
historical processes would contribute to developinğ an analytical perspective
that interprets cinema from the perspective of social classes.
145
Appendix
A List of Suğğested Movies for Comparison
The followinğ list includes a number of movies that can be considered
as the art-house movies of the New Cinema of Turkey and can be
compared and contrasted with the movies examined in this thesis. The
main characteristics of art-house cinema and New Cinema of Turkey are
discussed in chapter 2. Althouğh this list attempts to be as inclusive as
possible, it is neither complete, nor comprehensive. Instead, it attempts
to provide a pool of art-house movies towards which one can extend the
interpretation of inter-class encoutners in the New Cinema of Turkey.
The siğn * indicates the movies that miğht be fruitful for the interpretation
of inter-class encounters and ** points out the movies mentioned in
this thesis.
1 C Blok, Zeki Demirkubuz, 1994**
1 I z, Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, 1995
2 Tabutta Ro vaşata, Derviş Zaim, 1996
3 Masumiyet, Zeki Demirkubuz, 1997
4 Kasaba, Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 1997*
5 Hamam, Ferzan O zpetek, 1997
6 Gemide, Serdar Akar, 1998*
7 Kaç Para Kaç, Reha Erdem, 1999**
8 Lola + Bilidikid, Kutluğ Ataman, 1999
9 Gu neşe Yolculuk, Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, 1999**
10 Mayıs Sıkıntısı, Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 1999**
11 U çu ncu Sayfa, Zeki Demirkubuz, 1999*
12 Laleli’de Bir Azize, Kudret Sabancı, 1999
13 Filler ve Çimen, Derviş Zaim, 2000**
14 Bu yu k Adam Ku çu k Aşk, Handan I pekçi, 2001*
15 Herkes Kendi Evinde, Semih Kaplanoğ lu, 2001
16 Yazğı, Zeki Demirkubuz, 2001**
17 I tiraf, Zeki Demirkubuz, 2001*
146
18 Uzak, Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 2002*
19 9, U mit U nal, 2002
20 Hiçbiryerde, Tayfun Pirselimoğ lu, 2002
21 Çamur, Derviş Zaim, 2003*
22 Bekleme Odası, Zeki Demirkubuz, 2003*
23 Karpuz Kabuğ undan Gemiler Yapmak, Ahmet Uluçay, 2004
24 Yazı Tura, Uğ ur Yu cel, 2004
25 Meleğ in Du şu şu , Semih Kaplanoğ lu, 2004
26 Bulutları Beklerken, Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, 2004*
27 Korkuyorum Anne, Reha Erdem, 2004
28 Duvara Karşı, Fatih Akın, 2004
29 I ki Genç Kız, Kutluğ Ataman, 2005
30 Takva, O zer Kızıltan, 2006*
31 Beş Vakit, Reha Erdem, 2006
32 Kader, Zeki Demirkubuz, 2006
33 Cenneti Beklerken, Derviş Zaim, 2006
34 I klimler, Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 2006
35 Yumurta, Semih Kaplanoğ lu, 2007*
36 Ara, U mit U nal, 2007
37 Yaşamın Kıyısında, Fatih Akın, 2007*
38 Go lğesizler, U mit U nal, 2008
39 Su t, Semih Kaplanoğ lu, 2008
40 Rıza, Tayfun Pirselimoğ lu, 2008
41 Pandora’nın Kutusu, Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, 2008*
42 Bahoz, Kazım O z, 2008*
43 Sonbahar, O zcan Alper, 2008**
44 U ç Maymun, Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 2008*
45 Nokta, Derviş Zaim, 2008
46 Hayat Var, Reha Erdem, 2008
47 Tatil Kitabı, Seyfi Teoman, 2008
48 Gitmek: Benim Marlon ve Brandom, Hu seyin Karabey, 2008*
49 2 Dil 1 Bavul; Orhan Eskiko y, O zğu r Doğ an, 2008*
50 Made in Europe, I nan Temelkuran, 2008*
51 Bornova Bornova, I nan Temelkuran, 2009*
147
52 11’e 10 Kala, Pelin Esmer, 2009**
53 Uzak I htimal, Mahmut Fazıl Coşkun, 2009
54 Kıskanmak, Zeki Demirkubuz, 2009*
55 Ko pru dekiler, Aslı O zğe, 2009*
56 Başka Dilde Aşk, I lksen Başarır, 2009
57 Bu yu k Oyun, Atıl I naç, 2009*
58 Çoğ unluk, Seren Yu ce, 2010**
59 Gişe Memuru, Tolğa Karaçelik, 2010*
60 Ses, U mit U nal, 2010
61 Atlıkarınca, I lksen Başarır, 2010
62 Bal, Semih Kaplanoğ lu, 2010
63 Saç, Tayfun Pirselimoğ lu, 2010
64 Pus, Tayfun Pirselimoğ lu, 2010
65 Go lğeler ve Suretler, Derviş Zaim, 2010
66 Teslimiyet, Emre Yalğın, 2010*
67 Kosmos, Reha Erdem, 2010
68 Bir Zamanlar Anadolu’da, Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 2011**
69 Gelecek Uzun Su rer, O zcan Alper, 2011**
70 Bizim Bu yu k Çaresizliğ imiz, Seyfi Teoman, 2011
71 Nar, U mit U nal, 2011
72 Zenne; Caner Alper, Mehmet Binay, 2011
73 Yeraltı, Zeki Demirkubuz, 2012**
74 Tepenin Ardı, Emin Alper, 2012
75 Go zetleme Kulesi, Pelin Esmer, 2012
76 Ku f, Ali Aydın, 2012
77 Zerre, Erdem Tepeğo z, 2012**
78 Araf, Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, 2012
79 Şimdiki Zaman, Belmin So ylemez, 2012*
80 Devir, Derviş Zaim, 2012
81 Yozğat Blues, Mahmut Fazıl Coşkun, 2013
82 Ko ksu z, Deniz Akçay Katıksız, 2013*
83 Hayatboyu, Aslı O zğe, 2013*
84 Daire, Atıl I naç, 2013
85 Ben O Değ ilim, Tayfun Pirselimoğ lu, 2013
148
86 Şarkı So yleyen Kadınlar, Reha Erdem, 2013
87 Jin, Reha Erdem, 2013
88 Mavi Dalğa; Zeynep Dadak, Merve Kayan, 2013
89 Sen Aydınlatırsın Geceyi, Onur U nlu , 2013
90 I tirazım Var, Onur U nlu , 2014
91 Annemin Şarkısı, Erol Mintaş, 2014*
92 Nerğis Hanım, Go rken Sarkan, 2014
93 Kış Uykusu, Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 2014**
94 Bir Varmış Bir Yomuş, Kazım O z, 2014*
95 Kuzu, Kutluğ Ataman, 2014
96 Sivas, Kaan Mu jdeci, 2014
97 Kumun Tadı, Melisa O nel, 2014*
98 Kusursuzlar, Ramin Matin, 2014
99 Balık, Derviş Zaim, 2014
100 Tuz Ruhu, Nesimi Yetik, 2014
101 Sesime Gel, Hu seyin Karabey, 2014*
102 Nefesim Kesilene Kadar, Emine Emel Balcı, 2015*
103 Ru zğarın Hatıraları, O zcan Alper, 2015
104 Toz Bezi, Ahu O ztu rk, 2015**
105 Mustanğ, Deniz Gamze Erğu ven, 2015*
106 Sarmaşık, Tolğa Karaçelik, 2015**
107 Abluka, Emin Alper, 2015*
108 Ana Yurdu, Senem Tu zen, 2015**
109 Bulantı, Zeki Demirkubuz, 2015*
110 Ko pek, Esen Işık, 2015*
111 Babamın Kanatları, Kıvanç Sezer, 2016**
112 Tereddu t, Yeşim Ustaoğ lu, 2016*
113 Kor, Zeki Demirkubuz, 2016*
114 Ru zğarda Salınan Nilu fer, Seren Yu ce, 2016*
115 Albu m, Mehmet Can Mertoğ lu, 2016*
116 Ru ya, Derviş Zaim, 2016
117 Koca Du nya, Reha Erdem, 2016
118 I şe Yarar Birşey, Pelin Esmer, 2017**
119 Buğ day, Semih Kaplanoğ lu, 2017
149
120 Ko rfez, Emre Yeksan, 2017*
121 Yol Kenarı, Tayfun Pirselimoğ lu, 2017
122 Kayğı, Ceylan O zğu n O zçelik, 2017
123 Sofra Sırları, U mit U nal, 2017
124 Sarı Sıcak, Fikret Reyhan, 2017*
125 Zer, Kazım O z, 2017*
126 Saf, Ali vatansever, 2018*
127 Ahlat Ağ acı, Nuri Bilğe Ceylan, 2018*
128 Son Çıkış, Ramin Matin, 2018
129 Yuva, Emre Yeksan, 2018*
130 Kelebekler, Tolğa Karaçelik, 2018*
131 I çerdekiler, Hu seyin Karabey, 2018*
132 Kız Kardeşler, Emin Alper, 2019**
133 Aşk, Bu yu , vs; U mit U nal, 2019*
134 Bağ lılık Aslı, Semih Kaplanoğ lu, 2019*
135 Bozkır, Ali O zel, 2019*
136 Ku çu k Şeyler, Kıvanç Sezer, 2019*
137 Hayaletler, Azra Deniz Okyay, 2020**
138 Kerr, Tayfun Pirselimoğ lu, 2020*
139 Go lğeler I çinde, Erdem Tepeğo z, 2020*
140 Çatlak, Fikret Reyhan, 2020*
141 Dirlik Du zenlik, Nesimi Yetik, 2020*
142 Kumbara, Ferit Karol, 2020*
143 Ko rleşme, Hacı Orman, 2020
144 Mavzer, Fatih O zcan, 2020
145 Seni Buldum Ya!, Reha Erdem, 2021
146 Bağ lılık Hasan, Semih Kaplanoğ lu, 2021
147 Sardunya, Çağ ıl Bocut, 2021*
148 Okul Tıraşı, Ferit Karahan, 2021*
151
Biblioğraphy
Abisel, Nilğu n, Umut Tu may Arslan, Pembe Behçetoğ ulları, Ali
Karadoğ an, Semire Ruken O ztu rk, and Nejat Ulusay. Çok Tuhaf Çok
Tanıdık: Vesikalı Yarim Üzerine. Metis, 2005.
Ağamben, Giorğio. The Signature of All Things: On Method. Translated by
Luca D’Isanto and Kevin Atteil. New York: Zone Books, 2009.
Ahmed, Sara. Stranğe Encounters: Embodied Others in Post-Coloniality.
Routledğe, 2000.
Akbal Su alp, Z. Tu l. “Mutlu Sınıf Yoktur; So yle Bunları.” In Sınıf İlişkileri:
Sureti Soldurulmuş Bir Resim Mi?, edited by M. Nedim Su alp, Aslı
Gu neş, and Z. Tu l Akbal Su alp, 129–62. Ankara: Bağ lam Yayıncılık, 2011.
———. “Taşrada Saklı Zaman-Geri Do nu lemeyen.” I n Taşrada Var Bir Zaman,
87–116. Çitlembik Yayınları, 2010.
———. “The Glorified Lumpen ‘Nothinğness’ versus Niğht Naviğations.”
In Cinema and Politics: Turkish Cinema and The New Europe, edited by
Deniz Bayrakdar, 221–32. Cambridğe Scholars Publishinğ, 2009.
Akbaş Emel. “Mısır Filmlerinin Tu rk Sinemasında Yarattığ ı Etki.”
Etkileşim 4 (2019): 276–84.
Akça, I smet. “Heğemonic Projects in Post-1980 Turkey and the Chanğinğ
Forms of Authoritarianism.” In Turkey Reframed: Constituting Neoliberal
Economy, edited by I smet Akça, Ahmet Bekmen, and Barış Alp
O zden, 13–47. London: Pluto Press, 2014.
Akçay, U mit. “Neoliberalism, Authoritarian Rule and Gezi Resistance in
Turkey.” Stony Brook, NY, USA, 2014. https://www.researchğate.
net/publication/323831928_Neoliberalism_Authoritarian_
Rule_and_Gezi_Resistance_in_Turkey.
152
Akdoğ an, O zğe Gu ven. “I şe Yarar Bir Şey’de Yolculuk, Hareket ve Zaman.”
SineFilozofi 3, no. 6 (2018): 3–22.
https://doi.orğ/10.31122/sinefilozofi.402294.
Altıno rs, Go rkem, and U mit Akçay. “Authoritarian Neoliberalism, Crisis,
and Consolidation: The Political Economy of Reğime Chanğe in Turkey.”
Globalizations (January 17, 2022): 1–25.
https://doi.orğ/10.1080/14747731.2021.2025290.
Anğın, Merih, and Pınar Bedirhanoğ lu. “Privatization Processes as Ideoloğical
Moments: The Block Sales of Larğe-Scale State Enterprises in
Turkey in the 2000s.” New Perspectives on Turkey 47 (2012): 139–67.
Arslan, Savaş. Cinema in Turkey: A New Critical History. Oxford University
Press, 2011.
Arslan, Umut Tu may. “Bozkırdaki Labirent Manzaradan Lekeye.” In Bir
Kapıdan Gireceksin: Türkiye Sineması Üzerine Denemeler, edited by
Umut Tu may Arslan, 193–219. Istanbul: Metis, 2012.
———. Bu Ka buslar Neden Cemil?: Yeşilçam’da Erkeklik ve Mazlumluk.
Metis Yayınları, 2005.
———. Kat, Sinema ve Etik. Metis Yayıncılık, 2020.
———. Mazi Kabrinin Hortlakları: Türklük, Melankoli ve Sinema. Metis,
2010.
Atakav, Eylem. Women and Turkish Cinema: Gender Politics, Cultural Identity
and Representation. Routledğe, 2013.
Babacan, Errol, Melehat Kutun, Ezği Pınar, and Zafer Yılmaz. Regime
Change in Turkey: Neoliberal Authoritarianism, Islamism and Hegemony.
Routledğe, 2021.
Barış, Janet. Yeni Türkiye Sinemasında Sınıfsal Görünümler. I stanbul:
Doruk Yayınları, 2021.
Başaran, Funda, ed. İşçi Filmleri, Öteki “Sinemalar.” I stanbul: Yordam, 2015.
153
Bauman, Zyğmunt. “The Makinğ and Unmakinğ of Stranğers.” In Debating
Cultural Hybridity: Multicultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-Racism,
edited by Pnina Werbner and Tariq Modood, 46–58. London: Zed
Books, 1997.
Bazin, Andre . What Is Cinema?: Volume I. Translated by Huğh Gray. University
of California Press, 2005.
Benjamin, Walter. The Arcades Project. Harvard University Press, 1999.
———. “The Work of Art in the Ağe of Mechanical Reproduction.” In Illuminations,
translated by Harry Zohn. New York: Schocken Books,
2007.
Bonitzer, Pascal. Bakış ve Ses. Istanbl: Metis, 2018.
Bora, Aksu. Kadınların Sınıfı. I letişim Yayınları, 2005.
Bora, Tanıl. Cereyanlar: Türkiye’de Siyasî İdeolojiler. I letişim Yayınları,
2017.
Brown, William. “Minor Cinema.” In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Film
Theory, 290–94. Routledğe, 2014.
Buğ ra, Ayşe, ed. Sınıftan Sınıfa: Fabrika Dışında Çalışma Manzaraları.
I letişim, 2010. https://iletisim.com.tr/kitap/siniftan-sinifa/8341.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
Routledğe, 2007.
Candan, Ayfer Bartu, and Biray Kolluoğ lu. “Emerğinğ Spaces of Neoliberalism:
A Gated Town and a Public Housinğ Project in I stanbul.” New
Perspectives on Turkey 39 (2008): 5–46.
Çelenk, Zehra. “’Bir Başkadır’la derdimiz ne?” Gazete Duvar, November
24, 2020. https://www.ğazeteduvar.com.tr/bir-baskadirla-derdimizne-
makale-1505354.
154
Çelik, Çetin, and Tuğ çe O zdemir. “When Downward Mobility Haunts: Reproduction
Crisis and Educational Strateğies of Turkish Middle Class
under the AK Party Rule.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 43,
no. 2 (February 17, 2022): 260–77.
https://doi.orğ/10.1080/01425692.2021.2018652.
Celik Rappas, Ipek A., and Philip E. Phillis. “‘Do the Riğht Thinğ’: Encounters
with Undocumented Miğrants in Contemporary European Cinema.”
Studies in European Cinema 17, no. 1 (2020): 36–50.
Chan, Felicia. Cosmopolitan Cinema: Cross-Cultural Encounters in East
Asian Film. Bloomsbury Academic, 2017.
Çiçekoğ lu, Feride. İsyankâr Şehir: Gezi Sonrası İstanbul Filmlerinde
Mahrem-İsyan. Metis Yayınları, 2019.
———. Şehrin İtirazı: Gezi Direnişi Öncesi İstanbul Filmlerinde İsyan Eşiği.
Metis Yayınları, 2015.
———. “Ses ve Zaman: 11’e 10 Kala.” In Bir Kapıdan Gireceksin: Türkiye
Sineması Üzerine Denemeler, 145–57. I stanbul: Metis, 2012.
———. Vesikalı Şehir. Metis, 2007.
Coşkun, Mustafa Kemal, ed. Emekçileri İzlemek: Sinemamızda Sınıf, Kültür,
Bilinç ve Direniş. I stanbul: Ginko Kitap, 2017.
Crippen, Matthew. “Aesthetics and Action: Situations, Emotional Perception
and the Kuleshov Effect.” Synthese 198, no. 9 (May 1, 2021): 2345–
63. https://doi.orğ/10.1007/s11229-019-02110-2.
Daldal, Aslı. “1990’ların Yeni Bağ ımsız Tu rk Sineması’nda Emekçi O znenin
Kayboluşu: Ku reselleşme ve Festivalizm.” Kültür ve İletişim 24, no. 1
(2021): 159–89. https://doi.orğ/10.18691/kulturveiletisim.800820.
———. “The Concept of ‘National Cinema’ and the ‘New Turkish Cinema.’”
In New Cinema, New Media: Reinventing Turkish Cinema, edited
by Murat Akser and Deniz Bayrakdar, 92–111. Cambridğe Scholars Publishinğ,
2014.
155
———. “The Cut (Kesik).” birğun.net, December 14, 2014.
https://www.birğun.net/haber/the-cut-kesik-72547.
———. Umut Distopya Siyaset: Toplumsaldan Bireysele Türk Sinemasından
Parçalar. h2o kitap, 2021.
Delanty, Gerard. “The Cosmopolitan Imağination: Critical Cosmopolitanism
and Social Theory.” The British Journal of Sociology 57, no. 1 (2006):
25–47.
Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema II: The Time-Image. Translated by Huğh Tomlinson
and Robert Galeta. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1989.
Deleuze, Gilles, and Fe lix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and
Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. University of Minnesota
Press, 1987.
———. Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1986.
Do nmez-Colin, Go nu l. “Contemporary Cinema of Turkey: Beinğ and Becominğ.”
In The Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Turkey, edited
by Joost Jonğerden. Routledğe, 2022.
———. The Routledge Dictionary of Turkish Cinema. Routledğe, 2014.
———. Turkish Cinema: Identity, Distance and Belonging. Reaktion
Books, 2008.
———. Women in the Cinemas of Iran and Turkey: As Images and as Image-
Makers. Taylor & Francis Group, 2021.
———. Women, Islam and Cinema. Reaktion Books, 2004.
Eisenstein, Serğei. Film Form: Essays in Film Theory. Edited by Jay Leyda.
HMH, 2014.
Elsaesser, Thomas. European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood. Amsterdam
University Press, 2005.
156
Ercan, Fuat, and Şebnem Oğ uz. “From Gezi Resistance to Soma Massacre:
Capital Accumulation and Class Struğğle in Turkey.” Socialist Register
51, no. 1 (2015): 114–35.
Erdoğ an, Nezih, and Deniz Go ktu rk. “Turkish Cinema.” In Companion Encyclopedia
of Middle Eastern and North African Film, edited by Oliver
Leeman. London and New York: Routledğe, 2001.
Erğu ç, Veysel. “Kız Kardeşler Filminde O znenin Durumu: Judith Butler
Perspektifinden Bir Okuma.” Sinecine 11, no. 1 (2020): 81–103.
Erol, Mehmet Erman. “State and Labour under AKP Rule in Turkey: An
Appraisal.” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 21, no. 6 (2018):
663–77.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Penğuin
UK, 2019.
———. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. Translated by Robert
Hurley. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
Gu çlu , O zlem. Female Silences, Turkey’s Crises: Gender, Nation and Past in
the New Cinema of Turkey. Cambridğe Scholars Publishinğ, 2016.
Gu lel, Devran. “Feminist Movement and Law-Makinğ in Turkey: A Critical
Appraisal from 1998 to 2018.” Women’s History Review 30, no. 1 (January
2, 2021): 2–27. https://doi.orğ/10.1080/09612025.2019.1695357.
Gu r, Gizem. “2010 Sonrası Tu rkiye Sinemasında Kadın Yo netmenler.” Unpublished
M.A. Thesis, Hacettepe U niversitesi, 2021.
Gu rbilek, Nurdan. Kötü Çocuk Türk. Metis, 2001.
Han, Byunğ-Chul. Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of
Power. Translated by Erik Butler. Verso Books, 2017.
Hepkon, Zeliha, and Oya Şakı Aydın. “Tu rk Sinemasının Go ru nmeyen
O znesi: I şçiler.” Galatasaray Üniversitesi İletişim Dergisi 12 (2010): 79–
103.
157
James, David. “Is There Class in This Text?: The Repression of Class in
Film and Cultural Studies.” In A Companion to Film Theory, edited by
Toby Miller and Robert Stam, 182–201. Blackwell, 2004.
Kandiyoti, Deniz, and Ayşe Saktanber, eds. Fragments of Culture: The Everyday
of Modern Turkey. I.B. Tauris, 2002.
Kaplan, Neşe, and Ali Barış Kaplan. “Deprivation, Class, and Identity Issue
in Contemporary Turkish Cinema.” Journal of Media Critiques 1, no. 2
(2015): 111–19. https://doi.orğ/10.17349/Jmc115306.
Karakaşlı, Karin. “Çoğ unluk Olarak Az.” In Bir Kapıdan Gireceksin: Türkiye
Sineması Üzerine Denemeler, 133–41. I stanbul: Metis, n.d.
Karpat, Kemal H. The Gecekondu: Rural Migration and Urbanization. Cambridğe
University Press, 1976.
Kaya, Ayhan. “Islamisation of Turkey under the AKP Rule: Empowerinğ
Family, Faith and Charity.” South European Society and Politics 20, no.
1 (2014): 47–69. http://dx.doi.orğ/10.1080/13608746.2014.979031.
Keleşoğ lu, Atifet. “Bir Sabtopya (Subtopia) Atlası Ya Da Kentin
Hayaletleri.” Sekans, no. e16 (Kasım 2021): 3–19.
Keyder, Çağ lar. Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local. Rowman & Littlefield,
1999.
Keyder, Cağlar. State and Class in Turkey: A Study in Capitalist Development.
Verso, 1987.
Kılıç, Ferhat. “’Bir Başkadır’da kamerayı kim tutuyor?” Gazete Duvar, November
18, 2020. https://www.ğazeteduvar.com.tr/bir-baskadirdakamerayi-
kim-tutuyor-haber-1504865.
Koçer, Zeynep, and Mustafa Orhan Go ztepe. “Representinğ Ethnicity in
Cinema durinğ Turkey’s Kurdish Initiative: A Critical Analysis of My
Marlon and Brando (Karabey, 2008), The Storm (O z, 2008) and Future
Lasts Forever (Alper, 2011).” Alphaville: Journal of Film and Screen Media
13 (2017): 54–68. https://doi.orğ/10.33178/alpha.13.03.
158
Ko ksal, O zlem. Aesthetics of Displacement: Turkey and Its Minorities on
Screen. Bloomsbury Publishinğ USA, 2017.
Kornbluh, Anna. Marxist Film Theory and Fight Club. Bloomsbury Academic,
2019.
Koutsourakis, Anğelos. “Marx and Cinema.” In Understanding Marx, Understanding
Modernism, edited by Mark Steven, 134–45. New York:
Bloomsbury, 2021.
Kracauer, Sieğfried. Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality.
Princeton University Press, 1997.
Mağlaras, Vasilis. “Consent and Submission: Aspects of Gramsci’s Theory
of the Political and Civil Society.” SAGE Open, January 2013.
https://doi.orğ/10.1177/2158244012472347.
Martin-Jones, David. Cinema Against Doublethink: Ethical Encounters
with the Lost Pasts of World History. Routledğe, 2019.
Marx, Karl. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Translated
by S.W. Ryazanskaya. Moscow: Proğress Publishers, 1993.
———. Capital: Volume I. Translated by Ben Fowkes. Penğuin UK, 2004.
———. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. Penğuin,
2015. https://www.marxists.orğ/archive/
marx/works/1857/ğrundrisse/index.htm.
Metz, Christian. Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema. Translated by
Michael Taylor. The Chicağo University Press, 1991.
Mowitt. Re-Takes: Postcoloniality and Foreign Film Languages. University
of Minnesota Press, 2005.
Nerğis, O zen. “Cine-Ethics and Class Struğğle: A Review of 2014 Palme
d’Or Winner Winter Sleep.” Potemkin Review, no. 1 (January 2015).
http:// www.potemkinreview.orğ/winter-sleep.html.
159
Olğunsoy, Ulaş Can. “Ru zğarda Salınan Nilu fer ve Albu m Filmlerinde Orta
Sınıf Eleştirisi.” ARTS: Artuklu Sanat ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi 7 (2022):
57–84.
O zçınar, Meral. “Deleuzyen Sinema: Mino r Bir Oluş Olarak Sarmaşık
Filminin Rizomatik Yapısı.” SineFilozofi 2, no. 4 (2017): 73–93.
O zdemir, Beceste Gu lçin. “I şe Yarar Bir Şey Filminin Kadın Karakterlerine
Ve O lu m Olğusuna Feminist Film Kuramı Çerçevesinde Anamorfotik
Bakış.” SineFilozofi O zel Sayı (2019): 493–517.
O zden, Barış Alp, I smet Akça, and Ahmet Bekmen. “Antinomies of Authoritarian
Neoliberalism in Turkey: The Justice and Development Party
Era.” In States of Discipline: Authoritarian Neoliberalism and the Contested
Reproduction of Capitalist Order, edited by Cemal Burak Tansel.
Rowman & Littlefield International, 2017.
O zonur, Defne. “Representation of Class and Political Stands in a Movie:
Winter Sleep.” İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi 43 (n.d.): 98–117.
O zşen, Yeliz. “The State and Cinema Sector in Neoliberal Turkey: Reğulation
or Arbitrary Intervention?” Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Boğ aziçi
University, 2019.
O ztu rk, Bahar, and Beyler Yetkiner, eds. Kavram ve Kuramlarla Bir
Başkadır. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık, 2021.
O zyu rek, Esra. Nostalgia for the Modern: State Secularism and Everyday
Politics in Turkey. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2006.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Translated by Wade
Baskin. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.
Şenses, Nazlı. “Gender, Women and Precarity: Examples from Turkey.” In
Women, Migration and Asylum in Turkey: Developing Gender-Sensitivity
in Migration Research, Policy and Practice, edited by Lucy Williams,
Emel Coşkun, and Selmin Kaşka, 49–67. Miğration, Diasporas and Citizenship.
Cham: Sprinğer International Publishinğ, 2020.
https://doi.orğ/10.1007/978-3-030-28887-7_3.
160
Simmel, Georğ. “The Stranğer.” In The Socioloğy of Georğ Simmel, translated
by Kurt Wolff, 402–8. New York: Free Press, 1950.
Steven, Mark. “Screeninğ Insurrection: Marx, Cinema, Revolution.” In After
Marx: Literature, Theory, and Value in the Twenty-First Century, edited
by Colleen Lye and Christopher Nealon, 55–71. Cambridğe University
Press, 2022.
Su alp, M. Nedim, Aslı Gu neş, and Z. Tu l Akbal Su alp, eds. Sınıf İlişkileri:
Sureti Suldurulmuş Bir Resim Mi? Ankara: Bağ lam, 2011.
Suner, Asuman. Hayalet Ev: Yeni Türk Sinemasında Aidiyet, Kimlik ve
Bellek. Metis, 2006.
Tansel, Cemal Burak. States of Discipline: Authoritarian Neoliberalism and
the Contested Reproduction of Capitalist Order. Rowman & Littlefield
International, 2017.
Toktamış, Kumru F. “(Im)Possibility of Neğotiatinğ Peace: 2005‒2015
Peace/Reconciliation Talks between the Turkish Government and
Kurdish Politicians.” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 21, no.
3 (2018): 286–303.
Tuğ al, Cihan. Passive Revolution: Absorbing the Islamic Challenge to Capitalism.
Stanford University Press, 2009.
Velioğ lu Metin, O zğu r. “‘Annem I zin Vermese Bu Filmi Çekmeyecektim’:
Foucault’nun I ktidar Kavramı U zerinden Ana Yurdu Filmi Okuması.”
SineFilozofi O zel Sayı (2019): 474–92.
https://doi.orğ/10.31122/sinefilozofi.515242.
Vertov, Dziğa. Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov. University of California
Press, 1984.
Willemen, Paul. “For a Comparative Film Studies.” Inter-Asia Cultural
Studies 6, no. 1 (2005): 98–112.
161
Yadirği, Veli. “Turkey’s Kurdish Question in the Era of Neoliberalism.”
Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 22, no. 6 (November 1,
2020): 793–809. https://doi.orğ/10.1080/19448953.2020.1801242.
Yalman, Galip. “The Neoliberal Transformation of State and Market in
Turkey: An Overview of Financial Developments from 1980 to 2000.”
In The Political Economy of Financial Transformation in Turkey, edited
by Galip Yalman, Thomas Marois, and Ali Rıza Gu nğen, 51–87.
Routledğe, 2019.
Yarar, Betu l. “Neoliberal-Neoconservative Feminism(s) in Turkey: Politics
of Female Bodies/Subjectivities and the Justice and Development
Party’s Turn to Authoritarianism.” New Perspectives on Turkey 63
(n.d.): 113–37. https://doi.orğ/doi:10.1017/npt.2020.18.
Yazıcı, Berna. “The Return to the Family: Welfare, State, and Politics of the
Family in Turkey.” Anthropological Quarterly 85, no. 1 (2012): 103–40.
Zaim, Derviş. “Odaklandığ ın Şey Gerçeğ indir: Tu rkiye Sineması,
Alu vyonik Tu rk Sineması ve Uluslararası Kabul,”
https://www.derviszaim.com/makaleler/.
———. “Your Focus Is Your Truth: Turkish Cinema, ‘Alluvionic’ Filmmakers
and International Acceptance.” In Shifting Landscapes: Media and
Film in European Context, edited by M. Christensen and N. Erdoğ an.
Cambridğe, 2008.
Z iz ek, Slavoj. Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through
Popular Culture. MIT Press, 1992.
----------. The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology.
Verso, 1999.
Zu rcher, Erik J. Turkey: A Modern History. Bloomsbury Academic, 2017.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder