Hüseyin Tabak's effort to create a monument for a great man with a cause in the shape of a documentary is a work that is exceeding its purpose as a natural consequence with its political arguments having the power to revive every decision and problem that people in Turkey see as incidents of a bygone period. Time has changed, a nation's political arguments and primary efforts have changed, religious people find a place of security and freedom in a country which has been secular for a long time with artificial endeavors of individuals far from the realities of a country's own cultural background. Yet, what we face in this country for every period, religious or secular, is an obvious absence of citizens who try to understand "the other". This process of understanding the other is something that takes a long time for a person to realize what it takes to understand one another, because, in this country, when someone faces with the reality itself, with a claim of empathy in advance, he or she fails everytime as it is not easy as it seems to compromise on something just like that, as if it has no sociological background, it has no cultural code in it whatsoever.
For the last decade, this problem of facing with the reality of a compromise has made itself prominent in Turkey with reforms of AKP(Justice and Development Party). Their understanding of "the other" is something rather naive and politically discharged without a presence of an intimate communication with a side that is ready to take risks and steps into an area which can be comprehended with education only. Without education and a sincere attempt to understand people having serious problems in a country that has always been far from democracy and human rights, reforms mean nothing. By 2018, AKP's political stance has come to a place which can be described as totally nationalist and nearly fascist with its excessive discourse using patriotic images and symbols whenever possible. As it turns out they only changed their source for a nationalistic stance from republican ideals to religious and monarchical phantasms. When AKP tried to embrace symbols of different ideologies, such as Nazim Hikmet -his books and poems have been included in series that Turkish Ministry of National Education recommends in the first years of AKP government after a very long time- or Cem Karaca, the party did not particularly compromise with them, it was rather a reaction to the republic itself which is secular, harsh against religion, so against AKP's ideals.
Following these kinds of reforms, there comes the "Solution process" which includes a series of reforms concerning Kurdish citizens. That process, just like other attempts, had failed as AKP and its radical supporters could not comprehend the situation, their slogans were of certain platitudes. Their way of handling the subject with expressions like "our Kurdish brothers" was of the same source that of nationalist Turks. It was neither an attempt for a government to confront its own history nor an endeavor to understand a historical and cultural problem. Certain figures like Sirri Sureyya Onder from Kurdish side tried hard on this matter, but the other side, maybe "the Turkish side" could not proceed from their base, their patriotic ports, since it was not an actual confrontation or compromise in any sense.
These lines in the title up there from the Turkish school oath, or Student Oath, heard in the movie as well in a part near the ending, are like the concrete evidence of what I was trying to explain. Now there is no oath anymore -that was a decision made by AKP government- but recently it is being discussed whether we shall have it back or not, and a great majority of citizens agrees to have it back. Another reform made without a certain thought process or education and explanation, just like an Erdogan's prophecy, "it would be good whatever it means if he does that" policy of Turkey, it failed at a grassroots level, which is the worst part of it, because common people of a country can alter any ideology of a certain government in time, AKP's actions do not matter that much, but if it is grassroots, then it indicates even a bigger problem.
As I have pointed out in the beginning, this documentary puts an emphasis on these subjects naturally, because Yilmaz Guney was a character of actual politics with a radical stance. His actions needed an ending with only a revolution that he sought for, he did not hide his political identity, he was ready for a genuine compromise, that's why he was imprisoned and banished. He was one of those examples of Turkey to reveal our lack of comprehension, empathy, courage. Tabak's composition reminds me of our country's harsh realities even more than Guney's own portrait as a biography. Maybe it is because he does not only portray Yilmaz Guney's life, he actually demonstrates his own documentary, as a Kurd, a search for his own identity. He tells the story of Guney's lifetime, he makes allusions to some certain points of Guney's life with others that are close to Guney as well, but he actually makes a movie of himself trying to produce a documentary of Yilmaz Guney with an exploration of himself as an active subject. Therefore, while doing the work of a documentary, he does not subside, on the contrary, he does emanate.
Tabak's way of ending the documentary is an intentional attempt to make us behold what Guney beholds, he, himself, beholds as well, what makes an individual an imperishable memory, faces close to the legend of Guney, faces beholding him and his life in essence. It adds the movie a dramatic flavor but this choice is not bad at all, it completes this great life with the human touch, with faces of intimacy which are the actual necessities of solving political problems as I put forward. I, personally, appreciate Tabak's effort, and thank him as well.
For the last decade, this problem of facing with the reality of a compromise has made itself prominent in Turkey with reforms of AKP(Justice and Development Party). Their understanding of "the other" is something rather naive and politically discharged without a presence of an intimate communication with a side that is ready to take risks and steps into an area which can be comprehended with education only. Without education and a sincere attempt to understand people having serious problems in a country that has always been far from democracy and human rights, reforms mean nothing. By 2018, AKP's political stance has come to a place which can be described as totally nationalist and nearly fascist with its excessive discourse using patriotic images and symbols whenever possible. As it turns out they only changed their source for a nationalistic stance from republican ideals to religious and monarchical phantasms. When AKP tried to embrace symbols of different ideologies, such as Nazim Hikmet -his books and poems have been included in series that Turkish Ministry of National Education recommends in the first years of AKP government after a very long time- or Cem Karaca, the party did not particularly compromise with them, it was rather a reaction to the republic itself which is secular, harsh against religion, so against AKP's ideals.
Following these kinds of reforms, there comes the "Solution process" which includes a series of reforms concerning Kurdish citizens. That process, just like other attempts, had failed as AKP and its radical supporters could not comprehend the situation, their slogans were of certain platitudes. Their way of handling the subject with expressions like "our Kurdish brothers" was of the same source that of nationalist Turks. It was neither an attempt for a government to confront its own history nor an endeavor to understand a historical and cultural problem. Certain figures like Sirri Sureyya Onder from Kurdish side tried hard on this matter, but the other side, maybe "the Turkish side" could not proceed from their base, their patriotic ports, since it was not an actual confrontation or compromise in any sense.
These lines in the title up there from the Turkish school oath, or Student Oath, heard in the movie as well in a part near the ending, are like the concrete evidence of what I was trying to explain. Now there is no oath anymore -that was a decision made by AKP government- but recently it is being discussed whether we shall have it back or not, and a great majority of citizens agrees to have it back. Another reform made without a certain thought process or education and explanation, just like an Erdogan's prophecy, "it would be good whatever it means if he does that" policy of Turkey, it failed at a grassroots level, which is the worst part of it, because common people of a country can alter any ideology of a certain government in time, AKP's actions do not matter that much, but if it is grassroots, then it indicates even a bigger problem.
As I have pointed out in the beginning, this documentary puts an emphasis on these subjects naturally, because Yilmaz Guney was a character of actual politics with a radical stance. His actions needed an ending with only a revolution that he sought for, he did not hide his political identity, he was ready for a genuine compromise, that's why he was imprisoned and banished. He was one of those examples of Turkey to reveal our lack of comprehension, empathy, courage. Tabak's composition reminds me of our country's harsh realities even more than Guney's own portrait as a biography. Maybe it is because he does not only portray Yilmaz Guney's life, he actually demonstrates his own documentary, as a Kurd, a search for his own identity. He tells the story of Guney's lifetime, he makes allusions to some certain points of Guney's life with others that are close to Guney as well, but he actually makes a movie of himself trying to produce a documentary of Yilmaz Guney with an exploration of himself as an active subject. Therefore, while doing the work of a documentary, he does not subside, on the contrary, he does emanate.
Tabak's way of ending the documentary is an intentional attempt to make us behold what Guney beholds, he, himself, beholds as well, what makes an individual an imperishable memory, faces close to the legend of Guney, faces beholding him and his life in essence. It adds the movie a dramatic flavor but this choice is not bad at all, it completes this great life with the human touch, with faces of intimacy which are the actual necessities of solving political problems as I put forward. I, personally, appreciate Tabak's effort, and thank him as well.
