Journal Title: Wide Screen
Vol 2, Issue 2, 2010 (Special Issue)
ISSN: 1757-3920
URL: http://widescreenjournal.org
Published by Subaltern Media, 153 Sandringham Drive, Leeds LS17 8DQ
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS?: CONTEMPORARY TURKISH TELEVISION AND
CINEMA
MELIS BEHLIL
Abstract: One of the most significant reasons for the revival of Turkish popular cinema is
possibly the proliferation of private television channels that started their broadcasts in the early
1990s. There are many different factors at play in the contemporary Turkish film production
scene. Further research looking into individual firms in depth would benefit not only the
scholars of Turkish cinema, but anyone interested in film industries in general, especially a film
industry that have been able to claw a considerable space for their local production without the
help of a quota system.
On any given day in the last few years, a stroll along Istanbul’s main shopping street
with its many movie theaters is bound to result in the same observation: cinema screens
have been taken over by popular Turkish cinema. It has become commonplace to see a
multiplex present Turkish films on all its screens. The number of local films released
reached 50 in 2008, with 60% of the market share, placed fourth after the US, India and
South Korea (Kaya 2009: 2)i. This figure would have been unimaginable in 1995, when
the local films held 1% of the market share.
Turkish popular cinema, which had its zenith in the 1960s during the ‘Yeşilçam’
era, is experiencing this revival due to numerous underlying reasons. Possibly the most
significant of these is the proliferation of private television channels that started their
broadcasts in the early 1990s. Not only did these new channels familiarize younger
audiences with the classics of ‘Yeşilçam’, but they also created an audiovisual industry
where there had been next to none, providing film crews with much needed jobs.
Additionally, a number of production companies that were initially affiliated with
television series have produced highly popular films, eliciting criticism from a number
of film critics for “pretending to make movies” (Güven 2004: 28). Since 2006, the
influence of television appears to have waned, and the top-grossing films in the country
have been created by production companies with a history in filmmaking rather than
television. In this paper, I will firstly present a brief history of the Turkish film industry,
followed by an analysis of the interaction between television and cinema, paying
special attention to the production companies.
A Brief History of Turkish Film Industry
In order to understand the current dynamics underlying the web of relations in Turkish
cinema, it is imperative to take a look at its history. The ‘Yeşilçam’ period, named after
Wide Screen, Vol 2, Issue 2. ISSN: 1757-3920 Published by Subaltern Media, 2010
2
Melis Behlil
Yeşilçam Street, on which most production companies were based, started in the late
1950s. Its peak was reached in the 1960s with an average of 150 films per year and
continued until the mid-1970s, when it averaged about 175 films (Arslan 2009: 85). In
1972, Turkish cinema set a record with 299 films, making Turkey one of the most
prolific countries in the world (Directorate General of Press & Information 2009:
unpaginated). A large number of the films were melodramas and comedies, with a
strong star presence. ‘Yeşilçam’ was influenced greatly by other cinemas; Turkish film
historian Giovanni Scognamillo claims that 90% of the nearly 300 films produced in
1972 were remakes, adaptations, or spin-offs (Gürata 2006: 242). This figure included
both the cinemas of Hollywood and Europe in the West (Arslan 2009: 85) and India
and Egypt in the East (Erdoğan 2006: 264).
While the earliest production companies were founded in the early 1920s, these
were rather limited in their output, and it was not until the 1940s that the number of
companies showed an increase (Tunç 2006: 12, 26). Following a tax break for local
films that was instituted in 1948ii many more companies entered the market. Of the 126
new companies from the 1950s, many were short-lived (Kırel 2005: 56). In the 1960s
and the 1970s, 224 and 237 more firms were founded, respectively (Erkılıç 2003: 113,
134). In her in-depth account of ‘Yeşilçam’, Serpil Kırel lists 17 production companies
that made 637 of the 1710 Turkish films released between 1960-69 (2005: 58). While
637 is a significant figure, it accounts for only 37% of the entire output. At their peak in
the 1930s, the eight Hollywood studios produced roughly 95% of American films
(Gomery 2005: 3). Unlike its American counterpart, the Turkish film industry has never
been a strong oligopoly. Possibly as a result of this, the companies also failed to be
long-lasting: out of these 17 companies, only four still survive today (Çilingir:
unpaginated), and only two, Arzu Film and Erler Film are currently active producersiii.
The dominance of local productions came to an end in the late 1970s for a
number of reasons. After the 1973 OPEC crisis and the 1974 military intervention in
Cyprus, the general well-being of Turkish economy deteriorated notably. As the ticket
prices went up by 50%, the overall attendance at movie theaters declined by 45%
(Scognamillo 1975: 351). The general unrest in the society that made the streets unsafe
kept families away from the theaters (Çetin-Erus 2007a: 124), and the proliferation of
television further abetted the decline of ticket sales. The number of registered television
sets went from 50,000 in 1970 to 1,000,000 in 1976 (Erkılıç 2003: 124). The popularity
of soft porn films, along with the musical ‘arabesk’ genre, both aimed at the poor male
immigrants in urban areas helped keep production levels still relatively high popular in
the late 1970s despite the drop in general admissions. All the same, number of films
produced per year sharply declined throughout the following two decades.
Concurrently, the number of cinemas also declined, and particularly, a large number of
the smaller independent theaters closed down. From 2,242 in 1970, the number of
cinemas dwindled down to 281 by 1991 (Erkılıç 2003: 125, 177), with an enormous
87% drop.
After the coup d’état of 1980, Turkey underwent enormous social changes. In
the film industry, many of the smaller companies shut down, giving way to new
producers that targeted the newly flourishing video market (Tunç 2006: 70). Attempts
at a quota system by the post-military government were stifled, allegedly due to prompt
intervention by the US Embassy (Çokyiğit 1989). At the same time, the structure of
http://widescreenjournal.org
Close encounters
3
distribution was drastically altered. The changes made to foreign capital regulations in
1987 allowed foreign distributors to enter the Turkish market without an intermediary
(Çetin-Erus 2007b: 6). In 1989, Warner Bros. (WB) and United International Pictures
(UIP) started distributing both local and foreign films in Turkey. Throughout the 1990s,
the prominence of these foreign distribution firms was seen as one of the reasons why
Turkish cinema could not recuperate its former healthiv (Açar 1996: 1186, Evren 1997:
102). While films were still being produced in Turkey, getting distribution was a
significant problem. Out of 37 films produced per year in 1995 and 1996, only ten were
released in theaters each year (Erkılıç 2003: 177).
Rise of Television and the Turkish Cinematic Renaissance
It was one of the 10 films released in 1996 that is now often seen as the turning point
for the country’s film industry. Yavuz Turgul’s Eşkıya (The Bandit) was released in
November, ultimately with over 2.5 million tickets sold. The closest until this time was
Amerikalı (The American, Gören 1993) with 400,000 tickets (Çetin-Erus 2007a: 125),
and as the box-office numbers from ‘Yeşilçam’ era were not properly maintained,
Eşkıya was considered the highest grossing film in Turkish film history (Mengü, İnci
2000, unpaginated). Since then, 34 local films have sold over a million tickets. While
the market share of Turkish films does fluctuate, there has been a steady overall
increase since 2002v. More importantly, the overall number for movie-going audiences
showed an increase of over 50%vi.
The intense production environment brought about by the proliferation of
private television channels in the 1990s laid the foundations for this brisk activity in the
Turkish film industry. Turkey’s national public broadcaster, The Turkish Radio and
Television Corporation (TRT) started its first television channel in 1968 and it had a
complete monopoly over the country’s airwaves until 1990. The first private channel,
Magic Box, started its broadcast from Germany via satellite, as the regulations at the
time did not permit private channels. The constitution of 1982 clearly indicated that
radio and television channels could only be founded by the state and run as an
independent incorporated body (Yalçın 1999: unpaginated). The said article was
annulled in 1993, but until then, 11 channels had already been founded (Serim 2007: 8).
The content for these new channels initially consisted of news and
entertainment programs, foreign (largely Hollywood) series, and ‘Yeşilçam’ films that
had been purchased in bulk from now defunct production companies. In the second half
of the 1990s, the demand for locally produced series intensified, resulting in an industry
of a considerable size (Çetin-Erus 2007a: 126). Among the noteworthy producers of the
‘Yeşilçam’ era, Erler Film was the first company to notice the shift to television,
starting to produce content for television as early as the late 1980s (Scognamillo, 2004:
408-409). During the earlier half of the 1990s, a number of production companies also
have had pre-sales deals with the new television channels but this practice was
discontinued after the economic crisis of 1994 (Erkılıç 2003: 167).
As of December 2008, the official number of private national channels in
Turkey totaled 20vii; with three news channels and one music television. Despite the
recent competition from reality shows and contests, 11 channels (including the national
TRT) regularly broadcast Turkish series, creating a very large demand for local
productions. According to a report released by the Istanbul Chamber of Certified Public
Wide Screen, Vol 2, Issue 2. ISSN: 1757-3920 Published by Subaltern Media, 2010
4
Melis Behlil
Accountants (ICCPA), 11 national networks broadcast 63 series in 2008, creating an
economy of 1 billion TL (455 million Euros) (ICCPA 2008: 1)viii. Some of these series
are exported to other Middle Eastern countries, providing a new funding source for
production companies. This expansion in television has led to a similar growth in
advertisements, the largest component that contributes to television channels’ revenues.
The increase in advertising production further expanded the audio-visual sector in
Turkey, and contributed to the betterment of local film laboratories, which also cater to
theatrical releases.
In her essay on the influence of television in contemporary Turkish cinema,
Zeynep Çetin-Erus argues that popular cinema in Turkey is largely shaped by television
and advertising. She asserts that whilst the television sector provided a haven for
members of the cinematic workforce during the period when filmmaking was at its
nadir, this intensely close interaction between television and cinema has a number of
negative consequences (2007a: 131). According to Çetin-Erus, the most significant of
these is the inevitable moulding of feature films in the form of TV series, with too many
characters without any depth and a series of events with no clear cause-and-effect
relations. Her investigation focuses on 17 films released between 1996 and 2005, all
with over one million admissions. Her analysis shows that 14 of these films were
produced by companies that are heavily involved in television and/or advertising, and
that their crews consisted largely of individuals from the television sector (Çetin-Erus
2007a: 123).
Production Today
Çetin-Erus’ conclusions, while not untrue, do not fully reflect the present situation. The
influence of television is significant, although especially in terms of production
companies, it has waned since the mid 2000s. Extending Çetin-Erus’ research into
2009, I have examined not only the producers, but also cast, director and content of all
films released. My results show that while there is a strong affiliation between film and
television on some levels, there is an increasingly stronger presence of production
companies and directors who work only in theatrical releases.
Casting proved to be the site for the highest amount of interaction between
cinema and television. The borders between the two sectors are porous, as the
percentage of acting personnel in cinema who often work for television varies between
76% and 85% for the 192 Turkish films that were released between 2006 and 2009ix.
TV series often provide acting talent with a steady paycheck and function as a training
ground for the young and unestablished actors. Yet, as the performers are often the
most visible components of audio visual texts, their presence across the different media
reinforces the preconception that most feature films now look like TV series (ÇetinErus 2007a: 123).
Showing a much lower rate of overlap than the cast, a little less than half of the
directors of feature length releases also work for television. One should note that since
directors’ work in advertising is hardly ever acknowledged on any database, this
percentage may actually be higher. Also, a number of Turkish filmmakers such as Nuri
Bilge Ceylan or Zeki Demirkubuz, as well as a newer generation of directors that
follow in their footsteps, prefer to work within the framework of “art cinema,”
producing their films with support from institutional structures such as the Ministry of
http://widescreenjournal.org
Close encounters
5
Culture and Tourism or Eurimages, and distributing them within the network of film
festivalsx. Nonetheless, some of those filmmakers are also involved with television,
especially advertisingxi. The assistance from the Ministry, established in 2004 (Binatlı
2005: 133) has proven to be rather significant within the last decade, as I will illustrate
briefly.
In terms of content, there is a rather wide-spread assumption that nearly all
popular TV series are eventually adapted to cinema (Güven 2004: 28). Converting TV
series into feature length films is a familiar strategy that is often employed in
Hollywood, as popular series come equipped with a potential audience for the film. Of
the 192 films analyzed in this paper, only seven were directly adapted from existing
television material. It is significant however, that three of these have been the topgrossing films at the box-office in 2006, 2008 and 2009, possibly creating the
impression that TV series are translated into cinema more often than they really are.
While television has played a significant role in the initial renaissance of
Turkish cinema, direct intersection between film and TV is presently lower, also in
terms of production companies. Çetin-Erus’ analysis of the top grossing films shows
that only companies that dealt solely in theatrical releases produced three of 17 most
popular films between 1996-2005. Since 2006, however, of 17 films with over one
million admissions, film companies created eight. Although still less than half, this
figure shows more than 250% increase over the previous decade. Looking only at
commercially successful films may seem limiting, but these pictures account for a
substantial part of contemporary film culture in Turkey. For instance in 2008, six
highest grossing films accounted for 66% of all tickets sold for local productions and in
2009, three films accounted for over 70%. When all films are taken into account, the
number of films made by production companies that also produce television content is
even lower, resulting in the following percentages: 27% in 2006, 29% in 2007, 20% in
2008 and 16% in 2009.
Mitigating Circumstances
It has already been noted that television has provided a refuge for members of the
audiovisual field during the period when filmmaking was hardly possible. What is less
visible, and hardly documented, is the informal support from the industry’s resources
given to young filmmakers who make their cinematic debuts on shoestring budgets.
Serkan Acar, producer of Sonbahar (Autumn, Alper 2008) notes that it would not have
been possible to make that award-winning film without the aid of personal connections
with companies that supply the technical equipmentxii. These filmmakers, who start
their careers as production assistants on various television sets, be it for advertising or
for a series, can receive cameras, lighting equipment, and access to post-production
facilities at much lower rates because of the relationships they have built during their
employment with television productions. In turn, these technical facilities owe their
livelihood mostly to the growth of television production since the 1990s (Köstepen 7).
Another possible factor for the revival of Turkish cinema that involves
television directly has been the wide availability of online material from television
programs. Popular television series are uploaded online by channels soon after their
initial broadcasting, allowing the fans to not only catch up or view shows repeatedly,
but also to discuss them on the online forums. Additionally, online advertising and
Wide Screen, Vol 2, Issue 2. ISSN: 1757-3920 Published by Subaltern Media, 2010
6
Melis Behlil
public relations has made it possible for films with relatively lower promotion budgets
to reach potential viewers. The most noteworthy case has been Recep İvedik (T.
Gökbakar 2008), which is currently the second-highest grossing film in Turkish cinema,
surpassed only slightly by its sequel Recep İvedik 2 (T. Gökbakar, 2009) and
potentially, Recep İvedik 3 (T. Gökbakar, 2010). Comedian / actor / writer Şahan
Gökbakarxiii created the character of Recep İvedik for his variety television show Dikkat
Şahan Çıkabilir [Attention Şahan] in 2005, producing skits involving İvedik for about a
year. Between mid-2006, when the show was put on hold in favor of a news parody
program by the same crew and early 2008, when the feature film of Recep İvedik was
released, clips from the İvedik skits became widely available on Youtube and other
video broadcasting sites. Without a major star -other than Gökbakar, for whom this was
a first leading cinematic role-, a large budget, any special effects, or a traditional
promotional campaign, the first film of the series reached over 4 million viewers in
Turkey alone. The sequels also emulated this success.
Arguably the most visible and significant influence to fire up Turkish cinema in
the 2000s is the support system set up by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. After
years of complaints from the industry about how the state never provides any help to
the cinematic sector, “The Law for the Evaluation, Classification and Support of
Feature Films”xiv was passed in July 2004, followed by the “Regulation for the Support
of Feature Films”xv established in November of the same year. Since 2005, the Support
Board has been convening twice a year to determine the projects to be supported in
development, production and post-production.
While there is also support for short films and feature documentaries, the greater
part of the funding the Ministry provides is allocated for feature films, ranging between
200,000TL and 400,000TLxvi. These amounts are to be repaid to the Ministry only in
the case that the film can recuperate its production costs at the box office. Although
producers who are unable to repay their support are not allowed to apply with a
different project for three years, if their film is invited to a competitive feature film
festival or wins a significant award, this waiting period is deferred. The selection board
evaluates feature film debut projects separately, presenting new filmmakers with an
opportunity to demonstrate and establish themselves. The support for a first feature film
has been fixed at 200,000TL for all projects. While the amounts handed out may be
only a portion of the films’ budgets, they do provide a good starting point, and beyond
the economic stimulus, the entire process of application and pronouncements produce
excitement, motivation, and much debate for the filmmaking circles (Köstepen 7).
I have stated earlier that the current production environment in Turkey allows
for the existence of a relatively large number of production companies. The state
support structure further strengthens this environment, as applications are allotted funds
not according to previous experience, but based on individual projects. In 2008, the 50
films released were (co-) produced by 52 different firms and in 2009, 68 films by 70
companies. Many of these are minor ventures that work on a small scale, often
associated with a single project. The commercially successful films demonstrate who
the bigger players are, creating a cycle where films that earn money at the box office
allow the companies to invest further into production. From the ‘Yeşilçam’ era, only
Arzu Film remains among the noteworthy production companies, and has been
involved with five of the largest productions since 1996. In addition to Arzu Film,
http://widescreenjournal.org
Close encounters
7
several of the new bigger players (producers of films that sell over a million tickets)
stand out in this revival era.
New Players Big and Small
Özen Film has also been producing films since the fifties, although its core business has
traditionally been distribution. Despite having lost its position as the largest distributor
in Turkey to UIP after 1989, it is still the strongest company in terms of distributing
local productions, where its share is 40.48% as the market leader in 2009. Additionally,
it owns a chain of multiplexes, and is thereby the only company that reflects the vertical
integration model of classical Hollywood with interests in production, distribution, as
well as exhibition. Özen Film produced no more than two feature films per year, but its
involvement in the Recep İvedik series, as well as a few other major hits throughout the
1990s and 2000s has helped establish it as one of the largest producers of Turkish
popular cinema.
Despite Özen Film’s involvement in distribution and exhibition, Arzu Film and
Özen Film are both dedicated to cinema alone. Among the significant newcomers,
Böcek Yapım and BKM are rather different in this sense. Böcek Yapım was founded in
1998 to produce mostly advertising films and music videos. Since it started its feature
film production in 2006, Böcek Yapım has been involved with four films, all of which
have attracted over a million viewers eachxvii. Three of these were co-produced with
BKM (Beşiktaş Kültür Merkezi – Beşiktaş Cultural Center), another new entry that has
proven to be significant with six feature films, five of which with over one million
tickets soldxviii.
Founded as a theater company in 1994, BKM has been creating original stage
shows that have become immensely popular. Its TV shows, which use the same cast
and similar material, have been airing since 1995 - many of them similarly admired.
BKM Film was then established in 2000, again functioning with the same cast and crew
as the original theater troupe. Between the two of them, Böcek Yapım and BKM cover
most aspects of television production: Böcek is still involved with advertisements and
music videos; BKM still produces numerous TV shows. Their feature film productions
have proven to be successful enough to stand on their own, without having to rely on
income from television to continue their cinematic endeavors. Yılmaz Erdoğan, one of
the founders of BKM, who also writes, directs and stars in many of the films, states that
features were always their main goal, and theater was in a sense a preparation before the
ensemble was “ready” to make the transition to cinema (Sarıkartal 178).
The most notable entry in the field, however, is also one of the most recent; Fida
Film co-produced eight of the biggest Turkish films since 2004, when it released its
first film. The twelve films it has released by the end of 2009 have so far sold over 19
million tickets. Its closest competitor would be Arzu Film, but all six releases Arzu has
had in the same period were already co-productions with Fida. Within the same period,
BKM released five films that reached 11.5 million viewers.
Fida Film was founded in 1965 in order to distribute commercials in movie
theaters and currently holds 96% of the national market in this domain. It is furthermore
affiliated with three other companies in the sector. Cinemaj, founded in 1997, provides
laser subtitling, as well as logistic support to the leading distribution companies. LDI
Lisans A.Ş. is the official exclusive licensing agent of Warner Bros., Sony, Marvel
Wide Screen, Vol 2, Issue 2. ISSN: 1757-3920 Published by Subaltern Media, 2010
8
Melis Behlil
Pictures, Paramount, New Line, and 20th Century Fox consumer products among
others, and has been operating since 1999. The most recent affiliate, PRA Film, was
founded in 2003 and acquired theatrical, home video and television domestic
distribution rights from studios and sales companies such as New Line, Lionsgate,
Summit, and Mandate Picturesxix.
The decision to embark upon production had been taken by Fida Film due to its
long term involvement with the country’s distribution and exhibition systems (Erkal).
In this sense, it makes business sense for a company that already possesses detailed
market data and know-how about consumer choices to engage in the production
process. Fida Film’s first co-production was in 2004, with Hababam Sınıfı Merhaba
(The Class of Chaos, Tibet); the next year, it released Hababam Sınıfı Askerde (The
Class of Chaos in the Army, Eğilmez). Hababam Sınıfı was the remake of a classic
Yeşilçam era comedy series from the 1970s. Both of these films were co-produced with
Arzu Film, the original producer of the series. Entering a new field with an experienced
partner was a conscious choice, as was choosing a beloved franchise that audiences
already had a rapport with. Moreover, the release of potential hits that would increase
overall audience numbers in Turkey would be (and has been) further beneficial to Fida
Film, which stands to gain from this growth in terms of its advertising distribution
business.
Between 2006 and 2009, Fida Film co-produced 13 films. Eight of these have
sold over a million tickets each, Yahşi Batı (Sorak, 2010),has surpassed 2 million
tickets. All co-productions have been with established film production companies,
where Fida Film supplied 50% of the financing. In addition to its six films with Arzu
Film, Fida has worked with Aksoy Film, another company dedicated to theatrical
releases. Co-productions are advantageous in more ways than one for Fida Film: they
provide the production experience and know-how from the other party, while splitting
the risks in the rare chance that the film fails at the box-office. The company may take
on smaller projects where it will be the sole producer, but there are no concrete plans at
the moment (Erkal).
It is rational for a company like Fida Film to enter production, creating a
synergy that would also benefit its other businesses. A globally more common strategy
is for media conglomerates to purchase studios and enter the film business, as
Hollywood is run by “entertainment megacompanies” (Aksoy, Robins 1992: 17). The
Turkish counterparts of News Corporation or Sony are major media corporations such
as Doğan Holding or Doğuş Group. Doğan Holding currently owns eight newspapers,
three national television channels, a digital TV platform, numerous radio channels and
magazines. Its production company, D Productions, has created over 30 TV series, and
has entered feature film business in 2003 with the aim of “realizing at least four Turkish
films per year.”xx In 2003 and 2004, D Productions did indeed complete four
productions, with two of them leading the box-officexxi. Nonetheless, Doğan Holding
has not been involved with any other feature film since.
Similarly, despite its concerns in six television channels, the only cinematic
release originating from within the Doğuş Group has been Mustafa (Dündar /
Duranoğlu, 2008), a high-grossing documentary about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk that was
produced by NTV, Doğuş Group’s national news channel. This apparent lack of interest
in cinema on the part of the country’s largest media conglomerates may be explained by
http://widescreenjournal.org
Close encounters
9
the volatility of the market. While local films fare exceptionally well at the Turkish
box-office today, the situation was completely different only a decade ago.
Additionally, independent companies and not the conglomerates’ production divisions
often produce even the commercially successful films based on TV series.
As I have stated earlier, while the bigger companies are more visible because of
their higher-profile productions, much smaller companies that have no involvement in
any other sector such as television make majority of the films. The funding for these
films come from a variety of sources: Ministry support, international co-productions,
and in some cases, private savings. A famed example is the case of Narsist Film,
founded by Hakan Karahan in 2007 to produce literary adaptations. Karahan had been
the CEO of a major Turkish investment bank until 2003, but quit his position when he
decided to pursue a career in acting. Consequently, funding for his films comes largely
from his personal wealthxxii.
Many of the directors within the festival circuits have their own production
companies, allowing themselves to work independently. Semih Kaplanoğlu, who won
the Golden Bear in 2010 with Bal (Honey), is also the owner of Kaplan Film, which
only produces his projects. Kaplanoğlu justifies the founding of his company by
pointing to the negative experiences during the shooting of his feature debut, which was
externally produced (Özbatur 146). Nuri Bilge Ceylan produced his own films through
NBC Film until 2006, when he started working with Zeyno Film, an ‘arthouse’
production company founded by an independent producer who specializes in
international co-productions. Similarly, Yeşim Ustaoğlu founded Ustaoğlu Film in
2003, and Derviş Zaim established Marathon Filmcilik in 1996 to produce only their
own films. The financial backing for these productions comes from the traditional
‘arthouse’ structures: state support, international funds, as well as rewards won at
festivalsxxiii. Reha Erdem’s Atlantik Film is an interesting case in the sense that while it
is similar to the independent companies (the only feature films made by Atlantik Film
are Erdem’s), it also produces a massive amount of advertising films, which then
becomes its prime source of funding. Erdem directed his feature debut in 1989, and
until his second feature in 1999, he established himself as the leading advertising
director of the country. His unique position sets Erdem apart as possibly “the most
independent director” of the country.
There are many different factors at play in the contemporary Turkish film
production scene. Further research looking into individual firms in depth would benefit
not only the scholars of Turkish cinema, but anyone interested in film industries in
general, especially a film industry that have been able to claw a considerable space for
their local production without the help of a quota system. As long as Turkish films
continue their takeover of multiplexes, there will be plenty of new companies that
would fairly command an academic interest.
About the author: Melis Behlil teaches in the Radio, Television and Cinema Department at
Kadir Has University in Istanbul, and is a film critic for Acik Radyo.
Contact: melisb@gmail.com
Wide Screen, Vol 2, Issue 2. ISSN: 1757-3920 Published by Subaltern Media, 2010
Melis Behlil
10
Top 10 highest-grossing Turkish filmsxxiv
No Title
Year
Production Company
Tickets sold
1
Recep İvedik 2
2009
Özen Film – Aksoy Film
4,330,714
2
Recep İvedik
2008
Özen Film – Aksoy Film
4,301,641
3
Kurtlar Vadisi-Irak
2006
Pana Film
4,256,567
4
G.O.R.A
2004
Böcek Film – BKM
4,001,071
5
Babam ve Oğlum
2005
Avşar Film
3,837,876
6
A.R.O.G
2008
CMYLMZ – Fida Film
3,457,966
7
Vizontele
2001
Böcek Film – BKM
3,308,120
8
Vizontele Tuba
2004
Böcek Film – BKM
2,894,802
9
Hababam Sınıfı Askerde
2005
Arzu Film – Fida Film
2,586,132
10
Eşkıya
1996
Filmacass
2,571,133
Notes:
i
Nearly 70 films were released in 2009, a figure not seen in Turkish cinema since the
1980s.
ii
Taxes on revenues for imported films was 70%, as opposed to the 25% tax imposed
on revenues from local productions.
iii
The four companies are: Arzu Film, Erler Film, Erman Film and Saner Film. Arzu
is the only one that specializes in feature films, Erler works largely in television.
Erman imports films for theatrical release, and Saner sells the screening rights to its
old films.
iv
In 2008, UIP held a market share of 34.62% out of a total of nearly 37 million
tickets, while WB’s share was 14.18%. Their biggest competitor is Özen Film,
Turkey’s second largest distributor with 26.69% market share in 2008.
v
Market share figures for Turkish films are as follows: 8.5% in 2002, 22.9% in 2003,
37.4% in 2004, 42% in 2005, 51.8% in 2006, 38.1% in 2007 and 60.1% in 2008. This
figure is likely to see a slight drop in 2009.
vi
From 25,257,326 in 2000 to 38,528,956 in 2008.
http://widescreenjournal.org
Close encounters
vii
11
This number, as determined by the election board for the purposes of campaign
regulations concerning the local elections in March 2009, was published in the
Official Gazette. Available at:
http://rega.basbakanlik.gov.tr/eskiler/2008/12/20081228-9.htm. Accessed November
15th 2009.
viii
This number is further raised by series produced for the digital platforms, a more
recent development that was pioneered by Türkmax in 2008.
ix
These figures include the documentary features, exclusion of which would make the
percentages even higher.
x
Turkey has been a member of Eurimages European Cinema Support Fund since
1990. Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/eurimages/About/MemberStates_en.asp
Accessed November 19th 2009.
xi
The most remarkable one among directors who earn their money in advertising and
spend it on their feature projects is Reha Erdem, whose Beş Vakit (Times and Winds,
2006) and Hayat Var (My Only Sunshine, 2008) have won awards at MannheimHeidelberg and Berlin Film Festivals, respectively.
xii
Panel discussion, International Film Festival Rotterdam, January 24th 2009.
xiii
Togan Gökbakar, who directed all three films, is the younger brother of Şahan
Gökbakar.
xiv
Available at:
http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=http://rega.basbakanlik.gov.tr/eskiler
/2004/07/20040721.htm&main=http://rega.basbakanlik.gov.tr/eskiler/2004/07/200407
21.htm. Accessed March 2nd 2010.
xv
Available at:
http://www.kultur.gov.tr/teftis/Genel/BelgeGoster.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFF03077C
A1048A1834F4736C8164F90731. Accessed March 2nd 2010.
xvi
Approximately between 100,000 Euros and 200,000 Euros. Within the first two
years of the support, the amounts handed out were more varied, goins as high as
475,000TL (230,000 Euros).
xvii
All figures are from Antrakt Weekly: http://www.antraktsinema.com.
xviii
The sixth was Beynelmilel (The Internationale, Önder/Gülmez, 2006), a political
black comedy. In addition to its respectable box office of over 400,000 tickets, it has
become a prestige project for BKM, winning numerous awards at all the major
national festivals.
xix
Fida Film corporate information is available at: http://www.fidafilm.com/.
Accessed
November 5th 2009.
xx
Information available at http://www.dproductions.com.tr/yerliyapimlar/. Accessed
November 21st 2009.
xxi
Asmalı Konak: Hayat (Oğuz, 2003) and O Şimdi Asker (Altıoklar, 2003)
xxii
Narsist Film has made two films so far, both directed by Ümit Ünal, a leading
director and scriptwriter. Karahan functions as the producer, as well as the leading
actor. The first production by Narsist Film, Gölgesizler (Shadowless, 2009), also
received state funding.
Wide Screen, Vol 2, Issue 2. ISSN: 1757-3920 Published by Subaltern Media, 2010
12
Melis Behlil
xxiii
In addition to Eurimages, Hubert Bals Fund established by the International Film
Festival Rotterdam, has been a major source for various stages of funding for Turkish
filmmakers. In terms of festivals, the oldest and most established national film festival
is held in Antalya every fall, and its Best Film prize comes along with a 300,000 TL
(150,000 Euros) award. The same amount is also given to the Best Film in the
Yeşilçam Awards since 2008.
xxiv
All figures are from Antrakt Weekly. In comparison, Titanic (Cameron, 1998) has
sold 2,844,022 tickets and Avatar (Cameron, 2009), over 2,300,000.
References
Açar, M. (1996) “Türk Sinemasında Amerikan Hakimiyeti (American Dominance in
Turkish Cinema),” Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi (Encyclopedia
of the Republican Era Turkey), Istanbul: Iletişim Yayınları, 14: 1186-1189.
Aksoy, A., Robins, K. (1992) “Hollywood for the 21st century: global competition for
critical mass in image markets,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 16: 1-22.
Alper, Ö., director (2008) Sonbahar (Autumn), Istanbul: Tiglon.
Arslan, S. (2009) “The New Cinema of Turkey,” New Cinemas: Journal of
Contemporary Film 7: 83-97.
Binatlı, Ö.C. (2005) “5224 Sayılı Kanuna Göre Sinema Filmlerine Devlet Desteği
(State Support for Motion Pictures According to Law Number 5224),”
İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7: 133-137.
Çetin-Erus, Z. (2007a) “Son On Yılın Popüler Türk Sinemasında Televizyon
Sektörünün Etkileri (Television's Influence on Popular Turkish Cinema of the
Last Decade),” Marmara Iletisim Dergisi, 12: 123-133.
Çetin-Erus, Z. (2007b) “Film Endüstrisi ve Dağıtım: 1990 Sonrası Türk Sinemasında
Dağıtım Sektörü (Film Industry and Distribution: Distribution in post-1990
Turkish Cinema),” Journal of Selcuk Communication, 16: 5-16.
Çilingir, S. (2009) Yapım Şirketleri (Production Companies). Available at:
http://www.sadibey.com/baglantilari/film-sirketleri. Accessed November 12th 2009.
Çokyiğit, C. (1989) “Türk Sineması, Amerikan Darbesi (Turkish Cinema, American
Coup),” Tercüman Newspaper, December 15th 1989, Istanbul.
Directorate General of Press & Information (2009) Turkish Cinema. Available at:
http://www.byegm.gov.tr/db/dosyalar/webicerik26.pdf. Accessed November
8th 2009.
Dündar, C., Duranoğlu, H.M., directors (2008) Mustafa, Istanbul: Warner Bros.
Eğilmez, F., director (2005) Hababam Sınıfı Askerde (The Class of Chaos in the
Army), Istanbul: Özen Film.
Erdoğan, N. (2006) “Mute Bodies, Disembodied Voices: Notes on Sound in Turkish
Popular Cinema” in D. Eleftheriotis and G. Needham (ed.s) Asian Cinemas: A
Reader & Guide, Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Erkal, O. (2009) Interview with the author (Erkal is an executive producer at Fida
Film) November 7th 2009.
http://widescreenjournal.org
Close encounters
13
Erkılıç, H. (2003) Türk Sinemasının Ekonomik Yapısı ve Bu Yapının Sinemamıza
Etkileri (Economic Structure of Turkish Cinema and Its Effects), PhD Thesis,
Mimar Sinan University, Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul.
Evren, B. (1997) Değişimin Dönemecinde Türk Sineması (Turkish Cinema at the
Cusp of Change), Istanbul: Antrakt Yayınları.
Gomery, D. (2005), The Hollywood Studio System: A History, London: British Film
Institute.
Gökbakar, T., director (2008) Recep İvedik, Istanbul: Özen Film.
Gökbakar, T., director (2009) Recep İvedik 2, Istanbul: Özen Film.
Gökbakar, T., director (2010) Recep İvedik 3, Istanbul: Özen Film.
Gürata, A. (2006) “Translating Modernity: Remakes in Turkish Cinema” in D.
Eleftheriotis and G. Needham (ed.s) Asian Cinemas: A Reader & Guide,
Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Gören, Ş., director (1993) Amerikalı (The American), Istanbul: Filmacass.
Güven, Y. (2004) “Türkiye Sinemasının Son Dönemi (The Recent Era in the Cinema
of Turkey),” Yeni Film, 7: 27-35.
Istanbul Chamber of Certified Public Accountants (ICCPA) (2008) Dizi Ekonomisi
(Series Economy) Available at:
http://archive.ismmmo.org.tr/docs/basin/2008/bulten/04102008_DiziEkonomisi.pdf.
Accessed November 13th 2009.
Kaya, Y. “Türk Sinema Sektöründe 2008 Yılı Değerlendirmesi (2008 Year-end
Report for Turkish Film Industry)” Available at:
http://www.gedik.com/GetData/FnnWebDosya.ashx?Dizin=AnalizDosyaKlasoru&Fil
e=111.pdf&DownloadFile=2008
YILI
SINEMA
SEKTORU
th
DEGERLENDIRMESI.pdf. Accessed November 8 2009.
Kırel, S. (2005) Yeşilçam Öykü Sineması (Yeşilçam Narrative Cinema), Istanbul:
Babil Yayınları.
Köstepen, E. (2009) “Beyond the Great Divide of Art-House versus Popular?:
Emergent Forms of Filmmaking in Turkey” in S. Aytaç and G. Onaran (ed.s)
Young Turkish Cinema, Istanbul: Altyazı.
LUMIERE Database on admissions of films released in Europe. Available at:
http://lumiere.obs.coe.int. Accessed November 20th 2009.
Mengü, N., İnci, D. (2000) “Türk Sinemasının Serüveni (The Adventure of Turkish
Cinema)”
Available
at:
http://dosyalar.hurriyet.com.tr/sanat/sinema/anasayfa.htm.
Accessed
November 12th 2009.
Özbatur, Z. (2008) “Bağımsız Yapımcılar ve Yönetmenler (Independent Producers
and Directors)”, in D. Bayrakdar (ed.) Türk Film Araştırmalarında Yeni
Yönelimler 7 (New Directions in Turkish Film Studies 7), Istanbul: Bağlam
Yayınları.
Sarıkartal, Ç. (2008) “Yapımcı Yönetmenler I (Producer Directors I)”, in D,
Bayrakdar (ed.) Türk Film Araştırmalarında Yeni Yönelimler 7 (New
Directions in Turkish Film Studies 7), Istanbul: Bağlam Yayınları.
Wide Screen, Vol 2, Issue 2. ISSN: 1757-3920 Published by Subaltern Media, 2010
14
Melis Behlil
Scognamillo, G. (1975) “Turkey”, in P. Cowie (ed.) International Film Guide 1976,
London: The Tantivy Press.
Scognamillo, G. (2004), Bay Sinema: Türker İnanoğlu (Mister Cinema: Türker
İnanoğlu), İstanbul, Doğan Kitapçılık.
Serim, Ö. (2007) Türk Televizyon Tarihi 1952-2006 (Turkish Television History),
Istanbul: Epsilon.
Sorak, Ö.F., director (2009) Yahşi Batı (Mild West), Istanbul: UIP.
Tibet, K., director (2004) Hababam Sınıfı Merhaba (The Class of Chaos), Istanbul:
Özen Film.
Tunç, E. (2006) Türk Sineması’nın Ekonomik Yapısı (1896-2005) (The Economic
Structure of Turkish Cinema (1896-2005)) unpublished MA Thesis, Istanbul
Technical University, Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul.
Turgul, Y., director (1996) Eşkıya (The Bandit), Istanbul: Warner Bros.
Yalçın, C. (1999) TRT ve Türkiye'nin Tanıtılması (TRT and the Promotion of
Turkey) Available at: http://plan8.dpt.gov.tr/tanitma/trt.html. Accessed
November 13th 2009.
http://widescreenjournal.org