top of page
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
Search

Censorship in Turkey For Artistic Representation in Film and Television Industry

  • Melis Şamdancı
  • Jan 22, 2022
  • 16 min read

Introduction ​ This essay will determine whether film censorship in Turkey should be approached as a tactic for regulation, with the discourses and powers involved, or to protect the society from the inappropriate influence of films with hopes to make films suitable for the general audience. Censorship has been a topic of heated discussion due to unstable political dynamics in Turkey for almost as long as I can remember. I believe that this research will help me learn more about how the film industry in Turkey works and what obstacles producers are faced with. In my perspective, censorship of artistic works leads artists to feel oppressed. If my artwork ever received censorship, I would feel shackled by authorities due to an inability to express myself freely. Freedom of artistic representation when constrained limits the artist's ability to externalize his or her creativity. The ambiguity of censorship laws in Turkey frustrates artists as it robs them of the opportunity to reflect their unique perspectives especially if it is not in accordance with authoritarian values. In this research, I aim to discuss different aspects of film censorship and develop my own opinion based on past cases. Censorship is the authority of ideas and opinions in a society used by both democratic and non-democratic governments. Censorship became inescapable with the advancements in technology and its exponential growth in prevalence. It now applies to television programs, plays, movies, printed books, print magazines, video games and essentially everything on the Internet. As the most widely consumed form of entertainment, films and television share the spotlight in governmental regulation. In Turkey, RTUK or the Radio and Television Supreme Council is responsible for making moral judgements about productions, and making sure that they adhere to a set of standards (Kenyon New Law In Turkey Has People In Film, TV Industries Worried About Censorship). These regulation attempts raise an issue whereby screenwriters and filmmakers’ freedom of expression is compromised. ​ The new Turkish law amending the ‘Law on the Evaluation, Classification and Support of Cinema Films’—entered into force after being published in the current issue of the Official Newspaper—begs to question: To what extent does censorship for artistic representation in the film and television industry in Turkey serve to uphold societal values? The confines of censorship in Turkey include maladaptive or harmful behaviors such as smoking, violation of Islamic customs, the representation of public authorities, and the approach towards morality, cultural protectionism, crimes and associated punishments. As the law grants the government with more and more power, censorship has made its way to the scenes and dialogues as well. ​

ree

Censorship as a Means to Maintain the Moral Fabric of Society ​ The Law dictates that the main purpose of film censorship is to prevent the public from getting influenced by the inappropriate aspects of films. Although psychologists are yet to reach a consensus on how the content of films affect the society at large, exposure to nudity, extreme violence, abusive language, and etc., has been thought to have a negative influence on the culture of a society. A censorship panel was formed to address this issue and decide what is suitable for the audience and what editing is necessary for a movie to be released or a program to be broadcasted on the television. The rules and regulations of the censorship panels may vary across different cultures, but they each serve to establish a balance between creativity and morality in the entertainment industry. In considering the prospective necessity of censorship in the film industry, it would be useful to ponder upon the implications of Albert Bandura’s bobo doll experiment. In this experiment which aims to explore observational learning in relation to adaptive and maladaptive behaviors, preschool children were divided into two groups: one where the children observed aggressive behavior, and one where they observed non aggressive behavior towards the bobo doll. The results of the study suggests that children who observe aggressive behavior tend to model what they saw and interact with the bobo doll in an aggressive manner as opposed to the kids who witness non-aggressive behavior, treating the bobo doll with compassion. The bobo doll experiment does not solely provide sufficient evidence for the possible harm children stand to endure from being exposed to violence on tv, however it serves to provide a theoretical leg to stand on for censorship laws (Nolen, Jeanette L., “Bobo Doll Experiment”, Britannica). ​ Without any kind of censorship, producers and directors could add extreme violence and offensive content in an effort to provoke a strong response, rendering the content of their production inappropriate for the general audience. Furthermore, a good portion of the audience consists of the younger generation which tends to get easily influenced by their favorite actors or actresses. Unless there is censorship, the youth stands to treat characters in movies and shows as role models and model maladaptive behavior. Age restrictions in censorship serve to shield the youth from being exposed to maladaptive behavior and immorality meanwhile protecting the moral fabric of the society at large. On the other hand, the practical application of censorship often leads to comical additions onto the scenes where the imagery of a cigarette is oddly replaced with a cartoon flower. The Turkish audience is accustomed to seeing close-ups with half the actors faces blurred out or censored with a cartoon flower. Everyone knows what lies beneath the cartoon flower, and often ends up paying even more attention to that which is censored. It begs to question whether censoring smoking or drinking in this way actually serves to maintain public health. ​ ​ Censorship as the Shackles of the Freedom of Expression ​ Regardless of the debatable moral necessities of censorship laws, there is a valid argument which states that censorship violates freedom of expression in art in general. The concept of freedom of artistic representation can differ among individuals and cultures. Creativity is restricted by the need to censor socially unacceptable contents like sexuality and violence, negatively impacting the artist’s expression. Independence must be granted to the artist in order to allow for unique expression. After all, the purpose of art is to provide an outlet for a free form of expression where artists can present their emotions, and allow the audience to experience the artist's mind. Censoring art can consequently limit a person’s inner world, forbidding them to present their unique selves in case it doesn’t adhere to social standards. Free speech, being one of the most basic human rights on which we proud ourselves, must not be subjected to limitations and restrictions. Restricting freedom in free speech directly contradicts with the very title of the concept meanwhile putting the symbol of a civilized society at risk. In an effort to establish a society with like-minded people, outside-the-box thinkers are often marginalized and estranged from the world by force. If censorship can go as far as alienating a portion of the population, how far is too far? How can free speech persist with no platform to be released? Since individual differences in opinions are inconsolable, how will the line which parts justified censorship and anti-democracy be drawn? One of the motives behind this extreme level of censorship is the concern of being offensive— as if constraining artistic expression is not offensive in itself. Hindering the freedom of artists paves the way for political control (Turkey Issued New Rules for Social Media. That May Mean That Media Censorship Wasn't Working.). ​ Personal, Marital and Family Morality in Censorship ​ Censorship approaches morality mainly as a matter of sexuality and objections to on-screen nudity and sexual activity. Although morality is an umbrella term, censorship rules often focus on nudity and sex while holding a very conservative view of both. The scale of “sexually provocative” content is not only on-screen sexual intercourse (marital or nonmarital), but any form of sexual intimacy, including kissing lips or nude body parts like shoulders that are not readily associated with sexuality, displays of naked legs, bikinis, revealing clothing and even visuals of nude paintings. An interesting example of the selectiveness of censorship came when RTUK fined a Turkish TV series called “Çukur,” which is primarily about mafias and contains an abundance of violence, for 260,000 Turkish Liras (equivalent to $70,000). What is odd about this fine is that it is unrelated to any of the violent scenes. RTUK seemingly has no moral issue with guns and murders meanwhile kissing is punishable by thousands of dollars. Nudity is an aesthetic that can be traced all the way back to ancient art forms from sculptures to paintings. Societal taboos forbid the contemporary artists to work with the unclothed human body in film yet adore the nude paintings that ornate museum walls across the globe. As of marital morality, the authorities were cautious in sustaining the sanctity of marriage. Metin Erksan's film "Dry Summer (1963)”, which won an international award, was censored in Turkey with the justification that "the woman in the film denigrates marital morality when she marries her ex-husband’s brother”. Authorities even tried to prevent the film from going to the International Berlin Film Festival. However, "Dry Summer" managed to make its way to Berlin and ended up winning the festival's biggest prize: the Golden Bear. Additionally, the Sex and the City 2 film was also banned from Turkish cable television because the commission founded gay marriage as “twisted and immoral” and dangerous to be exposed to for a Turkish family. On the 17th November, 2017, the governor's office of Ankara banned all films and events associated with LGBT, under the pretense of "public sensitivities.” Ironically, the homophobic vision of the government officials is the main immorality, encouraging the society towards sexual orientation discrimination. Equality has been a subject of debate globally, and although cultural differences may occur in the perception of morality, the censorship laws that theoretically exist to protect the moral fabric of the society should not encourage discrimination, let alone attempt to present discrimination as a moral act. The censorship laws entirely disregard LGBT+ art where the artist draws from lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues and employs gender related imagery to convey a message. As for public morality, the authorities object to portrayals that threaten the sacredness of ‘family’. Family morality essentially revolves around respect between the children and parents. Any form of aggression, or sign of disrespect ranging from talking to or about family members disrespectfully to hate towards them, is subject to removal from the scenes. If an artist were to reflect the domestic violence that makes the news on a daily basis, the reflection of reality will not be freely expressed. The artistic vision, the lighting, perspective, and the cinematography suffocate under the shadow of the subject matter and the creative decisions go unnoticed. Censorship in this sense can be perceived as an insult to the artist. ​ Censorship in the Istanbul Film Festival, Turkey ​ Film festivals are where filmmakers, screenwriters, actors, and the audience meet and share an artistic view of the world. In 2015, film censorship started affecting the Istanbul Film Festivalas well. Prior to 2015 only films that were to be commercially released needed a registration certificate from the Ministry of Culture, approving that the content of the film is appropriate for the general audience. Then the Ministry made the certificate compulsory for all Turkish films, even for the smallest festivals. The new registration wasn’t taken seriously until the Ministry ordered the Istanbul Film Festival to cancel the screening of the film North (original title: Bakur) right before its first display. North is an engaging documentary about the rebels of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) that showed footage of a few members of the outlawed. Ministry labelled it as a “PKK propaganda” and “terrorism.” Their decision ended up causing twenty-three outraged directors to withdraw their films, followed by the jury and the festival director leaving the scene, and the major competitions and the closing ceremony getting canceled. The festival is now forced into obedience. Currently, despite possible budgetary limitations, all films are required to be approved by the Minister of Culture and adhere to an ambiguous set of rules put in place by the Ministry of Culture. The Hays Code in classic Hollywood had 11 specific rules to comply with, but Turkey’s veto power is unstable and obscure. Void of clear standards to abide by, many filmmakers are discouraged from free artistic expression. Storytelling is constructed by the Ministry of Culture’s conservative and outdated views of morality, leaving little room for characters and events that fall outside of their little box of approval (Turkey's Government Is Censoring the Movies, But the Istanbul Film Festival Is Soldiering On). These ambiguous and selective laws leave a myriad of scenes that were shot with great effort and dedication left out in the dark, unable to ever reach an audience. This unpredictability pushes artists to play it safe and restrict themselves for their own security. Crimes, Consequences and Society’s Order ​ Filmic crime seems to be the second major theme that censorship is most visible in. However, what seems to bother censorship commissions is not the outlines of the crime, but the lack of legal punishment for it. This interpretation is that the issue isn’t the presence of criminal activities but the necessity of scenes showing the submission of the criminals to the police and the law, or their capture by the police. The commissions also ruled that criminals should be punished only by the police and the law, rather than by victims and / or loved ones who avenge the crimes. The commissions were so strict about showing judicial recourse that they didn’t even allow criminal characters to die before they could be legally punished. The reason behind the commissions’ insistence on punishment by law is based on the thought that if legal punishments and consequences aren’t shown to the audience, society would show a mimetic act which would threaten society’s order and security. The censorship laws do not solely request for removal of scenes that portray questionable morality but also ask filmmakers to add scene ps or elements that portray cultural values. In an effort to show Turkey as a country of law and order, the commission objected to the exclusion of a sequence about the Turkish police in the European co-production Estambul 65 (That Man in Istanbul, 1965, a James Bond imitation). The final version of the film’s exhibition was allowed in Turkey since scenes showing Turkish police and dialogues as “spies were followed by the Turkish police” were later added. Authorities also required the appearance of regular police activity. The censorship commissions naively envisioned Turkish society as a country of order where the law and the police were effectively functioning. By denying scenes of drug taking, gambling (even children playing cards), fraud and bribery, they pretended that any action prohibited by the law didn’t socially exist. ​ ​ Representation of Public Authorities ​ Censorship commissions include numerous interventions concerning the representation of public authorities, as the police, the military, and teachers. The commissions generally approached the view of public authorities embodying the idea of a serious, powerful, just, and moral state instead of individuals or characters who might have personal desires, weaknesses, or conflicts. Officers of the law and public workers are encouraged to be portrayed in an unrealistic manner as model citizens who are law abiding, who adhere to the highest moral standards and who engage in no sexual activities. Scenes showing soldiers or officers smoking, drinking, flirting, or making love were objectionable by the commission. A pilot, portrayed by Göksel Arsoy, kissing his lover while wearing a uniform in the movie “Dawn Watchmen” was censored by RTUK for showing affection in a sexual context. According to the censorship board, this is an act that wouldn’t suit the pilots of the Turkish Army. Moreover, police and military characters were expected to treat individuals with manners and without the use of brute force or corporal punishment (e.g. no whipping, torturing, or killing). More than reflecting reality, the commissions’ extreme level of susceptibility on this matter can be interpreted as the official logic being that brute force or torture should only be used secretly, and should publicly get rejected. moral state instead of individuals or characters who might have personal desires, weaknesses, or conflicts. On top of these depictions, scenes showing the public authorities getting attacked, wounded, or killed were also declined to maintain a strong portrayal. For example, Şafak Bekçileri (Guards of Dawn, 1963), the story of a military aviation student, was only accepted because the main character’s father’s words of “We have not had a peaceful dinner for two years, since you went to military school” got replaced with “As your mother says, wouldn’t it be better if you sent us letters often to save us from curiosity?” Upholding social values instead of belittling military schools and the chaos they entail, the commission revised the dialogue in a manner that uplifts family values. ​ ​ Cultural Protectionism and Censorship ​ Another main issue that commissions aim to address via censorship is cultural protectionism and to getting ahead of foreign propaganda. The importance that cultural protectionism holds is evident in various articles of the censorship criteria whereby Article 1 concerns “avoiding political propaganda related to a state,” Article 2 is concerned with “avoiding degrading an ethnic community or race,” and Article 3 concerns “avoiding hurting the sentiments of fellow states and nations”. The censorship commissions evaluated these articles extensively and sometimes vaguely. In line with these articles of censorship, Turkish films require for the Turkish characters to have Turkish names and use Turkish expressions. Films that included foreign names as “Dave”, scenes that a police commissioner is referred to as “Sheriff,” or singing “Happy Birthday” in English had been rejected and omitted. The commissions also rejected anything implying the superiority on behalf of foreign country or inferiority on behalf of Turkey. For instance, Yılmaz Güney, a famous scriptwriter and a director had been made obsolete in the film industry as all his productions were confiscated by the government and the screening of his films were banned for 10 years. He is mostly known for his movie “Yol”, a production that reveals all the sociological distortions of the period, and criticized the country culturally and socially. In the movie, by showing the transportation of a flock from the East Anatolia to the West by train, Guney reflects the poverty and despair of Anatolia while drawing attention to the political contradictions and conflicts. One of the major reasons why the film got banned was that it displayed a wide panorama of a society that was outdated by economic compulsion, oppression and the conflicts that arise. It wasn’t deemed appropriate and was labeled as a disgrace to the country's reputation (Milliyet.com.tr Bitmeyen 'Yol' filmi tartışması). Another one of his movies, ”Umut'' which is about the story of a poor carriage driver, was banned on the grounds that poverty propaganda was made through clothes, and the distinction between rich and poor was fueled. A closer look at Güney’s career reveals the ambiguity in the Turkish censorship laws. Art is often utilized as a means to critique that which is unsetting, and censoring all the productions and scenes that contradict the ideals of the RTUK which holds questionable values to begin with could be argued to be an act of fascism. The new generation never even got the opportunity to know Yılmaz Güney and his artistic representation of pervasive societal ailments. Moreover, the commissions were also very attentive about having respect towards other countries, not just the national pride itself. Any dialogue slandering other ethnicities and countries were also removed. In Şaşkın Baba (Bewildered Father, 1963), a Turkish girl has been labeled as a degenerate since she watches foreign films often. All phrases attacking foreign films were banned. Also, any expressions humiliating Arabs, such as “enemy states,” “treacherous Russians,” “filthy Jew,” and scenes defaming other countries were rejected as well. Overall, cultural protectionism and foreign propaganda is approached to be disrespectful towards countries and to be attacking values. The New Generation of Filmmakers as a Beacon of Hope ​ In the last 10 years, young directors who are new in the film industry attain the chance of getting acclaimed at festivals. The new generation seems to open a new chapter for Turkish cinema, full-filled with new ideas and interesting approaches, leading the Turkish film industry to success and reclaim freedom of expression. For instance, 37 years old Tolga Karacelik’s dark comedy, “Butterflies”, became the first Turkish film to win the Grand Jury prize at Sundance last year. Emin Alper, whose sophomore film, the dystopian “Frenzy”, won Venice’s Jury Special Prize in 2015 and competed for the Golden Bear at the Berlinale in February with his pastoral family drama, “A Tale of Three Sisters”. The new generation of filmmakers seem to be more courageous and eager to get what they want. This makes them harder to control since they mostly don’t obey without questioning. I believe that the new generation filmmakers’ disregard of ambiguous censorship laws stand to reclaim artistic freedom of expression without fear of persecution. ​ ​ Final Analysis ​ Armed with these facts, does censorship for artistic representation in the film and television industry in Turkey serve to uphold societal values? In a utopian world where censorship is only used for good and when necessary, the answer would be yes. In order to obtain a society consisting of individuals with good visions, people should be provided with valuable contents. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case. Turkey’s media legislation portrays such an oppressive picture that it is hard to argue against political motives behind the censorship laws. The strict restrictions prohibit artists from freely expressing their vision. With imagery and contents that are nudist, queer, and against societal values or the perception of the country and culture, the artist does not have the option to include. The wide scope of the laws constrain creative processes by rendering these topics and images off limits. Censoring art could arguably be against freedom of expression that is directed against the artist population. Turkey may now be taking a step toward furthering the democratic recession with censorship becoming a tool for Erdoğan’s act of controlling citizens by restricting their freedom, as a propaganda tactic for control and staying in power . Although it is necessary to refrain the youth from being exposed to possibly detrimental scenes that could have a long lasting effect on their thinking and behavior, censorship beyond the needs to protect the young threaten artistic freedom of expression, let alone the right for free speech. Adults who have formed their characters and established their identities can benefit from being exposed to mindsets and views that are outside of their own, and an attempt to silence opposing views to manipulate the masses can only be the product of an oppressive regime. The sanctity of freedom in art is threatened by unnecessary censorship, discouraging many filmmakers from expressing their views. ​ Conclusion ​ From my research, I was able to discuss both aspects of the discussion subject: people who consider it as a violation of freedom of artistic expression and people who see it as a way of making movies suitable for the general audience. The Law states censorship as preventing the society from getting influenced from the inappropriate aspects of films, however when the validity and reliability of the authority who decides what is moral and what is not is in question, censorship creates more tension than it provides protection. Congress has tried to encourage the film producers to accept the commissions to create characters worth being a role model. Others approach it as limiting an individual’s mind, forcing them to reduce themselves to a mundane way of thinking and excluding originality. Lots of great movies have been banned for going against official standards, attacking public morality, law and order, the legitimacy of the state, or essentially any film portrayal that went against official standards. ​ Bibliography:



 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page