“Turkish Rambo” Going Transnational: The Polarized Reception of Mainstream Political Cinema among the Turkish Diaspora in Belgium

Abstract

National identity has become a key theme in discussions about the Turkish media. Yet this is a topic less studied in the field of diasporic media studies. This article takes up the issue of political cinema and its reception among the Turkish diaspora. Through the example of the Valley of the Wolves (Kurtlar Vadisi) franchise, this article discusses how facts, fictions and geo-political motives converge into political cinema. Reporting on a mixed-method audience research that includes surveys, in-depth interviews, focus groups and participant observation among the Turkish community of Antwerp, this article describes the highly polarized reception of Valley of the Wolves among the diaspora.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Philippe Meers, Roel Vande Winkel, Sofie Van Bauwel and Lukasz Szulc for their comments on a first draft of this article.

Notes on Contributor

Kevin Smets received his PhD from the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. He is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Antwerp. His research deals with transnational media and diasporic media cultures. He is particularly interested in migration and media from Turkey and the Middle East.

Notes

1. Ogan, Communication and Identity in the Diaspora.

2. Aumüller, “Türkische Fernsehmedien in Deutschland,” 21–42.

3. Hopkins, “Citizenship and Global Broadcasting.”

4. Aksoy and Robins, “Banal Transnationalism,” 103.

5. Christensen, “Online Mediations in Transnational Space.”

6. Smets et al. “A Semi-Public Diasporic Space.”

7. Suner, New Turkish Cinema, 51–7.

8. Suner analyses both comedies and action films and demonstrates how it is often a common aim in these blockbuster productions to prove “the worth of the Turk to the world (read: the West)” (New Turkish cinema, 151). See also Suner, “Between Magnificence and Monstrosity.”

9. Boggs and Pollard, “Hollywood and the Spectacle of Terrorism;” Dodds, “Hollywood and the Popular Geopolitics of the War on Terror.”

10. Rosenbaum, Movies as Politics; Ryan and Kellner, Camera Politica.

11. Suner, New Turkish Cinema, 52, 58–75.

12. Dönmez-Colin, Turkish Cinema, 213.

13. The line of investigation that I follow here is akin to what Jenkins calls a mixed genre approach in film reception studies in an attempt to merge textual, ethnographic and “historical” concerns with films. See Jenkins, “Reception Theory and Audience Research.”

14. Kalra, Kaur, and Hutnyk, Diaspora & Hybridity.

15. Georgiou, Diaspora, Identity and the Media, 3 (emphasis in original).

16. Staiger, Media Reception Studies, 140–3.

17. Banaji, Reading “Bollywood;” Gillespie, Television, Ethnicity, and Cultural Change; Georgiou, Diaspora, Identity and the Media, 58–9.

18. Durham, “Constructing the ‘New Ethnicities’;” Georgiou, Diaspora, Identity and the Media, 109–10.

19. Gillespie, “Transnational Communications and Diaspora Communities.”

20. Michelle, “Modes of Reception.”

21. Ibid., 183.

22. Ibid., 194.

23. Hall, “Encoding/Decoding.”

24. Morley, The “Nationwide” Audience.

25. Staiger, Media Reception Studies, 80–1.

26. Michelle, “Modes of Reception,” 184.

27. Arslan, “The New Cinema of Turkey;” Arslan, Cinema in Turkey, 266–8.

28. Yanık, “‘Those Crazy Turks’ that Got Caught in the ‘Metal Storm’,” 1.

29. Ibid., 2.

30. Kaya and Çakmur, “Politics and Mass Media in Turkey.” Althgouh Kaya and Çakmur are mainly concerned with journalism, their findings suggest that pressure by political parties and the government and political positioning may equally take place at the level of larger media holdings.

31. Cizre, “Turkey at the Crossroads.”

32. Simpson, “Turkish Cinema's Resurgence;” Robins and Aksoy, “Deep Nation.”

33. Özkaracalar, “Representations of Imperialism in Turkish Cinema;” Işık, “Milliyetçilik, popüler kültür ve ‘Kurtlar Vadisi’;” Özkirimli and Uyan-Semerci, “Pater Familias and Homo Nationalis,” 63.

34. Schlesinger, “The Sociological Scope of ‘National Cinema’.”

35. Athique, “Bollywood, Brand India and Soft Power,” 114–5.

36. Gürel, “America, the (Oppressively) Funny.”

37. Jeffords, “Can Masculinity be Determined?”; Lichtenfeld, Action Speaks Louder.

38. Çelebi, “‘Valley of the Wolves’ as a Nationalist Text,” 38.

39. Valley of the Wolves has repeatedly been mentioned in relation to Turkey's crisis of masculinity; see, e.g. Bora and Bora, “Kurtlar Vadisi ve erkeklik krizi.”

40. Altınay, The Myth of the Military-Nation.

41. Güney, “Anti-Americanism in Turkey;” Türkmen, “Anti-Americanism as a Default Typology of Opposition.”

42. Aytürk, “The Coming of an Ice Age?”

43. On July 4, 2003, following the invasion of Iraq, a group from the Turkish military was captured in northern Iraq by the US army. They were led away with hoods over their head, and were released after 60 hours following Turkish protest. The event marked a low-point in the US–Turkish relations. The Gaza flotilla raid was an Israeli military operation against ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla on May 31, 2010. In a clash with the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, nine Turkish activists were killed and dozens were injured. On the aftermath of the raid from a Turkish perspective, see Baruh and Popescu, “Communicating Turkish-Islamic identity.”

44. Yanık, “‘Valley of the Wolves: Iraq’: Anti-Geopolitics Alla Turca;” Dittmer and Dodds, “Popular Geopolitics Past and Future;” Anaz and Purcell, “Geopolitics of Film.”

45. Kaya and Tecman, The Role of Common Cultural Heritage, 16.

46. Anaz and Purcell, “Geopolitics of Film,” 46.

47. Smets, Kaya Mutlu, and Vande Winkel, “Beware of the Wolves!”

48. The project ‘Cinema & Diaspora’ was supervised by Philippe Meers (University of Antwerp), Roel Vande Winkel (University of Antwerp) and Sofie Van Bauwel (Ghent University) and funded by the Research Foundation Flanders and the BOF Research Fund of the University of Antwerp.

49. Ma Mung, “Diaspora, Spatiality, Identities,” 45.

50. Yükleyen, Localizing Islam in Europe.

51. Morley, “Towards an Ethnography of the Television Audience.”

52. Age distribution individual and double interviews: <25: 3; 25–40: 12; 40–60: 3; >60: 2.

53. Age distribution focus group interviews: <25: 6; 25–40: 4; 40–60: 1.

54. Smets et al. “A Semi-Public Diasporic Space.”

55. Respondents are quoted by self-selected pseudonyms. The reference between brackets refers to the gender of the respondents and their age at the time of the interview.

56. Demir, “Elazığ’da Kurtlar Vadisi dizisinin alımlanması.”

57. Compare Anaz and Purcell, “Geopolitics of Film,” 41.

58. Michelle, “Modes of Reception.”

59. Ibid., 195.

60. Ibid., 196.

61. Özmen and Mengü, “Creation of Reality and its Reception by the Audience.”

62. Michelle, “Modes of Reception,” 203.

63. Yanık, “‘Valley of the Wolves: Iraq’: Anti-Geopolitics Alla Turca.”

64. Michelle, “Modes of Reception,” 207–8.

65. Suner, New Turkish cinema, 68.

66. Smets et al. “A Semi-Public Diasporic Space.”