Filmmaker Güney blazed trail for new Turkish directors

Turkish cinema has been riding a wave of global acclaim in recent years, culminating in director Semih Kaplanoğlu’s victory for “Bal” (Honey) at the Berlin International Film Festival, or Berlinale, in February. Ask anyone in the industry, however, who was the trailblazer behind this success, and there is invariably only one answer: Yılmaz Güney.

“Whenever you ask a prominent filmmaker at an international film festival about whether they know Turkish cinema, the answer is always Yılmaz Güney. [He] is the best-known aspect of Turkish cinema in the world,” Özcan Alper, a member of the new generation of Turkish filmmakers with many awards to his name, told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review

Nicknamed the “Ugly King” of Turkish cinema, Güney, who was of Kurdish origin, directed, produced, wrote and acted in numerous films. Though he died 25 years ago, he remains a legendary figure both for his innovative filmmaking and his refusal to compromise on his political ideals despite the tumult of the times.

Following the 1980 military coup, Güney fled to France out of fear of being arrested for his oppositional political views. He was later stripped of his citizenship before dying in France. Officials at the Culture Ministry have recently broached the subject of repatriating his remains, but Güney’s family was reportedly unenthusiastic about the idea.

Although movie critics occasionally debate whether to classify Güney’s films as part of Turkish or Kurdish cinema, the filmmaker led the way for moviemakers from both groups.

‘Güney gave us hope’

During a filmmaking career that spanned more than two decades, Güney finally received international recognition for his work when his 1982 film “Yol” (The Road), which he wrote and then directed in collaboration with Şerif Gönen, won the Golden Palm at Cannes, along with Costa Gavras’ “Missing.”

Before his worldwide success, however, Güney had enjoyed a stellar career in Turkey, punctuated in 1970 by “Umut” (Hope), a black-and-white film that depicted one poor man’s struggle to cling to life and support his family. “Umut” has widely been seen as one of the first political films made in Turkey.

“Despite being shot during the most difficult times in Turkey’s history, [‘Umut’] is really the embodiment of hope itself,” Alper said.

Müjde Arslan, a new-generation Kurdish filmmaker, agreed with Alper. “‘Umut’ gives a realistic description of its times,” she said, describing the artist as a sensitive humanist. “Güney was a profound director who could look deep into the problems of the era he lived in.”

“If he were alive now, he would be doing exactly the same thing,” she added. “He would not only be making films about the pain, the misery and traumas of the common people, but would also be trying to find solutions for all these. He again would give us hope.”

Güney on the world stage

In recent years, many Turkish directors have come back home with awards from leading film festivals around the world, just as Kaplanoğlu did with his Golden Bear from the Berlinale. Today’s Turkish cinema owes its success to Güney, said Alper, who added that he was significant both in providing a foundation for Turkish films to succeed internationally and in positing an alternative to Turkey’s official history. “Güney was the zealous voice of our quiet conscience,” Alper said.

‘Güney belongs to world cinema’

Tried and imprisoned for his political views, Güney had a very hard life. Although some observers have suggested his difficulty with the state was due to his Kurdish identity, Alper said the filmmaker suffered for his ideology, rather than his ethnic background.

Arslan, on the other hand, believes both aspects were equally detrimental.

“[Güney] knew that he was going to die, while he was shooting his last film, ‘Duvar’ [The Wall],” she said. “If only he had not had to put up with so many difficulties! If he had been able to go on, today’s youth would not be so apolitical.”

Debate is likely to continue on Güney’s position in Turkish cinema versus Kurdish cinema. But Alper’s stance on the issue is clear: “Nobody should dare dissociate Güney from Turkish cinema, for which he was a milestone. [But] he doesn’t belong solely to one or two national cinemas, he belongs to world cinema.”