A brief history (or lack thereof) of Atatürk in the movies

With Zülfü Livaneli's Atatürk biopic 'Veda' (Farewell), along with another offering on the same subject, due out in the next few months, we look back at the history of Atatürk biopics in Turkish cinema - or, more accurately, at the lack of them
A scene from 'Veda' by Zülfü Livaneli.

A scene from 'Veda' by Zülfü Livaneli.

Despite the passing of nearly a century since one of the first films detailing Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s role in the War of Independence, we have yet to see a truly impressive, groundbreaking feature film on Atatürk.

This week, “Veda” (Farewell), an Atatürk biopic by revered writer, composer, singer and filmmaker Zülfü Livaneli is being released. And in March, we will get to see another biopic, “Dersimiz Atatürk” (Today’s Lesson, Atatürk), written by Turgut Özakman, who penned the biggest-selling novel/biopic on Atatürk, “Şu Çılgın Türkler” (These Crazy Turks).

Both films promise to be essentially chronological tales of Atatürk’s life from childhood to death, a story memorized by heart by everyone born in Turkey. “Veda” is narrated by Atatürk’s childhood friend Salih Bozok, a devoted follower to his vision. The second film is told by an old storyteller to children – meaning we will get to watch another film about the founder of the Turkish Republic in narration, much like Can Dündar’s controversial 2008 documentary, “Mustafa.”

From Olivier to DeMille

As long as there has been cinema in Turkey, there have been rumors about Atatürk films, with a definitive feature biopic perpetually in the works since the 1950s. The reasons why these films were never made boil down to three basic facts: Atatürk’s image as a deity in the collective conscience of the Turkish people; apprehension about deviating from the state accounts of Atatürk’s biography; and the significance of such a film for the current political agenda.

According to Metin Erksan, one of Turkish cinema’s greatest filmmakers, Hollywood’s interest in an Atatürk biopic goes back to the late 1940s. American actor Douglas Fairbanks Jr. was cast to play Atatürk after World War II; when he visited Turkey in 1951, he was welcomed as a national hero, but the film project never came to fruition.

Later, Sir Laurence Olivier showed interest in the same script. But his interest also wore off as no government, civil or private institution from Turkey chose to cooperate in the project. Soon, another big name, the legendary American director and producer Cecil B. DeMille, showed interest in adapting Atatürk’s life, the Independence War and the Kemalist revolutions to the silver screen.

DeMille, who was known for his penchant for extravaganza with big epic dramas such as “The Ten Commandments” and “Cleopatra,” approached state representatives from both Turkey and the United Kingdom. Though U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill gave a green light to the project, Turkey once more remained silent.

After DeMille died, his production partner, Adil Özkaptan, talked with Turkish President Cemal Gürsel. Both Özkaptan and Yul Brynner, the latest actor cast as a potential Atatürk, also met with Gürsel, but were once again unable to produce an Atatürk biopic.

License to film Atatürk

Tarquin Olivier, the son of the British cinema giant, tried for more than a decade to bring Atatürk to the screen – even linking Antonio Banderas to the role at one point. The plan was shelved, however, and Banderas had to content himself with playing Ché in “Evita” and Zorro in “The Mask of Zorro” and its sequel.

The latest in a line of international Atatürk projects was initiated not long ago by Fuad Kavur, a British citizen who is also the cousin of the late Turkish director Ömer Kavur. The script is apparently ready and there are rumors that Kavur has been approaching producers with the idea of casting Daniel “James Bond” Craig in the lead role.

Despite the abortive foreign attempts, there are a few examples of Atatürk biopics in the history of Turkish cinema – some of them merely adaptations of school books, others expensive productions that are little more than glorified adaptations of the same school books.

The most noted of these offerings are director Feyzi Tuna’s “Metamorfoz” (Metamorphosis), commissioned by President Kenan Evren following the 1980 coup; the early 1990s television series “Kurtuluş” (Independence), directed by Ziya Öztan and written by Özakman; and “Cumhuriyet” (The Republic) by the same duo in the late 1990s.

Semih Tezcan began attempting an Atatürk biopic in 1980s; his three-decade-long quest to make the movie, however, resulted instead in the book, “Atatürk Filmi Projesi Nasıl Baltalandı?” (How Did the Atatürk Biopic Project Get Axed?).

Was ‘Mustafa’ a cautionary tale?

The most recent example of an Atatürk movie was a documentary film that proved more controversial than it deserved to be. Dündar’s “Mustafa” shed a whole new light on Turkey’s greatest hero, depicting the deified leader as a human being for perhaps the first time.

As implied by the first-name title, “Mustafa” was a very intimate recounting of Atatürk’s life in a never-before-seen light. Following painstaking research in the public archives from Atatürk’s personal journals, Dündar brought a whole new dimension to an exalted leader who finally came down from his pedestal.

Here was a man who flirted, missed his mother, had his heart broken, clashed with his friends, made mistakes, danced, drank and eventually led a lonely life in the face of a new century he could understand perfectly well but had no one with whom to share it.

From the first day of its release, “Mustafa” became the top subject of newspaper stories and TV programs. Did Atatürk talk about an autonomous land for the Kurds? Could he be called a dictator? What were the motives behind showing him smoking? And, oddly enough, how could he be lonely with a whole nation in awe of him?

Two years after “Mustafa” and the endless debates around it, two new feature films on Atatürk are ready to hit the screens.

The debates surrounding Dündar’s efforts seem to have sounded a cautionary note because, from the looks of the trailers, both films promise to be history lessons rather than character dramas. Here’s hoping the trailers are misleading.

Source: Hurriyet: A brief history (or lack thereof) of Atatürk in the movies