By Pietro A. Shakarian
An epic motion picture, it will introduce general
audiences to a tragic chapter of history that has been shamefully denied for
far too long.
Every year, on April 24, a solemn procession of men, women, and children
commences in Yerevan, the capital of the former Soviet republic of Armenia. A
sea of sad Armenian faces makes its way up to the hill of Tsitsernakaberd to
the Armenian Genocide Memorial. It is here that every year the victims of one
of the 20th century’s greatest crimes are quietly honored.
An ancient Christian country located just south of Russia
and east of Turkey, Armenia has seen much suffering in its long history.
However, of all the tragedies experienced by this small yet resilient nation,
none compares to the enormity of the Armenian genocide of 1915. The genocide
was committed by the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Possessed by a
fanatical nationalism, the ruling Young Turk government accused its Christian
Armenian subjects of sympathizing with the hated Russian enemy. What followed
was the planned, systematic, and ruthless mass murder of as many as 1.5 million
Armenian civilians.
“Of all the sufferers of the war,” wrote American
diplomat Lewis Einstein in The Nation in 1920, “none have endured more than the
Armenians, victims less of its horrors than of the Turkish Government’s
diabolical policy of murder.” To this day, Turkey continues to deny the
historical reality of the genocide, despite overwhelming scholarly evidence.
After over 100 years, the denial of this horrific crime has left the Armenian
people in state of incomplete mourning.
Terry George’s forthcoming film The Promise captures the
magnitude of this history in a way that no prior film on the genocide has done
before. With its sweeping cinematography, powerful acting, and all-encompassing
story, it is a truly epic work that effectively and humanely conveys the story
of the tragedy.
BRINGING THE TRAGEDY TO THE SCREEN
Given Turkey’s continued stance of denial, making a film
about the genocide has never been an easy task. Efforts to produce such a film
in Hollywood were consistently blocked by the Turkish government. The most
infamous instance of this was in the 1930s, when Ankara pressured MGM into
abandoning plans for producing an adaptation of the novel The Forty Days of
Musa Dagh, by Austrian-Jewish writer Franz Werfel. The novel was based on real
events in which a small community of Armenians living in the mountains of
Turkey’s present-day Hatay Province (on the Syrian border) defended themselves
against deportation by Ottoman authorities.
Due to Werfel’s Jewish background, the novel was banned
in Hitler’s Third Reich and subject to mass book burnings. The book eventually
came to the attention of MGM’s Irving Thalberg, who bought the rights and
decided to have it produced as a film. Pre-production began in 1934. Clark
Gable was to be the star. However, due to pressure from the Turkish government
(including anti-Semitic threats by Ankara against MGM as a “Jewish studio”),
Louis B. Mayer canceled the project.
“There are numerous reasons why a film like that has not
been made by Hollywood over the past century,” said Eric Esrailian, a UCLA
doctor who played a major role in the production of The Promise. “It is not as
though people have avoided spending money producing other films for all these
years. All elements—from studios to producers to actors to crew—have felt
pressure or intimidation in one form or another.”
There were indeed films produced about the genocide. The
earliest of these, Ravished Armenia (1919), starred a survivor of the genocide,
Aurora Mardiganian, and was produced by MGM at a time when Turkey did not have
the clout to stop such productions. The box office proceeds went to the aid of
Armenian orphans through the Near East Relief. Unfortunately, the film was
eventually lost and only recently turned up as a fragmentary copy in
post-Soviet Armenia.
The films that followed, such as Henrik Malyan’s Nahapet
(1977), Atom Egoyan’s Ararat (2002), Paolo and Vittorio Taviani’s Lark Farm
(2007), and Fatih Akin’s The Cut (2014), were unable to reach a mass American
audience. Distributed by Warner Bros., Elia Kazan’s America America (1963)
vividly depicted the persecution of Armenians and Greeks under Ottoman rule.
However, its main focus was the protagonist’s quest to emigrate to the United
States.
Given this history, Armenian-American philanthropist Kirk
Kerkorian believed that the time had come .for a Hollywood film on the
genocide. Kerkorian, who passed away in 2015, first conceived of the idea in
2010, but it acquired momentum in 2012 when Kerkorian set up Survival Pictures.
He entrusted his close friend Eric Esrailian to the task of bringing the story
of the genocide to a general American audience, and enlisted veteran producers
Mike Medavoy and William Horberg.
“We wanted to carefully find the right people—committed
people with sincere intentions in their hearts—to come together,” said
Esrailian. “Thankfully, we were successful, and the result has been everything
we hoped for. In addition, we also grew together as a family of people, both in
front of and behind the camera. The entire project is thanks to the courage and
dedication of Kirk Kerkorian, and people around the world will be thanking him
for generations to come.”
AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING EPIC
The Promise is an all-encompassing epic that captures
every aspect of the Armenian genocide and of the historical time and place in
which the tragedy was situated. Early proposals for films on the genocide
tended to focus on specific subjects and stories, such as the heroic defense of
Musa Dagh or the suffering of the Armenian composer Komitas. The Promise does
not limit itself in this regard. Instead, it presents an entire composite
picture of the history. All elements of the genocide are brought together into
one concise narrative. Ara Sarafian, the director of the Gomidas Institute in
London and the leading authority on the history of the genocide in the English
language, noted that The Promise “encompasses specific events, as well as
generic ones, that defined the destruction of the Armenians.” “The geography of
the film, the locations, the movement of people, were all in good order,” he
noted. “The cinematography is amazing, and the actors are really good. They
hold the narrative together. However, most importantly, the key themes were
historically accurate. The producers did not take license to go beyond the
historical material at hand yet they managed to capture much of the enormity of
the Armenian genocide.”
The film’s story centers on the aspiring doctor Mikael
Pogosian (well-portrayed by Oscar Issac) who leaves his native village in
southern Turkey to study medicine in Constantinople. Betrothed to a young woman
in his village, Mikael falls in love with the beautiful Ana Khesarian
(Charlotte Le Bon), a French-Armenian woman, in Constantinople. However, she is
also involved with Associated Press reporter Chris Myers (Christian Bale). In
the midst of this love story, all three of the characters personally experience
the genocide unfolding before them in different ways. Overall, though, it is
clearly Isaac’s character, Mikael, who emerges as the main protagonist of the
film. He is almost like a hero in a work by one of the great Armenian national
writers like Raffi or Khachatur Abovian, yet his experiences are based entirely
on actual historical events.
“The film’s main characters are fictional, but they are
an amalgam of profiles,” said Esrailian. “We wanted to involve the viewer in
the film’s story and to open the door to interest in historical events that
have been denied and suppressed for decades. We also wanted to highlight the
patterns of man’s inhumanity to man that are sadly being replicated in the
world today.”
Director Terry George succeeds masterfully in concisely
capturing the entire scope of the history of the genocide. The fictional village
of Siroun (meaning “beautiful” in the Armenian language) in Southern Turkey, in
an area that Armenians know by the name “Cilicia,” perfectly represents the
pre-genocide Ottoman Armenian village life. It captures an idyllic time,
highlighting the continuity of local Armenian life and customs before they were
destroyed. The aspiring doctor Mikael represents the hope of the Armenian
community for a better future in the Ottoman Empire.
Mikael’s journey to Constantinople (Istanbul) reveals yet
aspect of Ottoman Armenian life before the genocide: the prosperous
intellectual, political, and financial class of Armenians in the Ottoman
capital. The film shows their prosperous homes, churches, and trading
communities. Sporting the latest European fashions, yet part of the fabric of
Ottoman cultural and social life, these Armenians lived between Europe and Asia
in a city straddling both continents.
LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS
Enter Email
SIGN UP!
The film also alludes to the prosperous life of the
historically significant Armenian diaspora community in France, as personified
by Charlotte Le Bon’s character, Ana. However, Ana’s character is
representative of even more. Just as Mikael represents the aspirations for
Ottoman Armenians, so does Ana represent the affinities of the prosperous
Armenian urban class for Europe. Although played by a French actress, Ana’s
distinctive “Armenian” appearance also adds to the sense of idyllic, almost
melancholy nostalgia of pre-war Ottoman Armenian life.
Another character, Mikael’s friend, the Turkish playboy
Emre (Marwan Kenzari), represents the friendships that existed between
Armenians and Muslims before the genocide and those Muslims who, later, went
out of their way to save their Armenian friends and neighbors. “The inclusion
of righteous Muslims as represented by Emre who saves his Armenian friend and
is shot or the sub-governor (kaymakam) who helps Armenians escape was a
historically important aspect of the film,” noted Sarafian.
However, it is against this backdrop of the pre-war
Ottoman Empire that storm clouds begin to form. At a party overlooking the
Bosphorous, a drunken Chris takes aim at Ottoman officials and their German
guests for the entrance of German ships in Turkish waters leading up to the
Ottoman entry in the war. When the Ottoman Empire does enter the war, the angry
demonstrations in the streets against the Entente foreshadow pogroms against
Armenians in Constantinople later in the film. Soon, arrests against Armenian
elites begin in Constantinople, including the arrest of Komitas, which is also
highlighted in the film. In a village in the interior of Turkey, Chris finds
traces of a massacre against Armenians and photographs the carnage, recalling
the work of Armin T. Wegner, a German medic who documented the genocide in
photographs. Off in the distance, he sees a caravan of Armenians being marched
to their death into the desert.
As the film progresses, the grim reality of the full
scale of the genocide becomes even more apparent. Basic humanity is openly
disregarded. Mikael is eventually arrested and, with other Armenians, forced
into slave labor to build a railroad in the Amanus Mountains. In these scenes,
Armenians are wantonly shot and beaten. A former Armenian clown from a Constantinople
circus has become reduced to a sad shadow of his former self. Mikael escapes,
but encounters cattle cars transporting Armenians to the so-called
“resettlement zone” in the Syrian Desert. From these cattle cars spring forth
hands of thousands of Armenians, men and women, young and old, who desperately
relish the mere touch of rain water. It is a powerful, yet chilling image.
One of the film’s saddest and most difficult scenes
depicts the massacre of the Armenian villagers from Siroun, causing Mikael to
break down and sob. Such scenes are sensitively and tastefully done, but in the
words of Sarafian, are “not ‘toned down’ to accommodate Western sensibilities.”
If nostalgia and suffering are major themes of the film,
then so is courage. The film depicts the experience of American and European
Christian missionaries in saving Armenian orphans and of righteous Muslims and
Turks who protect Armenians. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau Sr. also appears in
the film and engages in a tense discussion with Talaat Pasha, the architect of
the genocide. The film also depicts perhaps the greatest act of bravery of all:
the defense of Musa Dagh by a hundreds of Armenian men, women, and children.
The final scenes illustrate the French rescue efforts to save these Armenians.
The frantic escape of these refugees to the Mediterranean coast and onto the
French ships is a story familiar to most Armenians who fled the genocide.
Although a more hardened and mature Mikael contemplates revenge for everything
he has experienced, Ana insists that “our survival will be our revenge.”
Although The Promise is a masterfully done film, it will
undoubtedly face challenges. Even prior to its US release, Turkish nationalists
have already taken to IMDb, Twitter, and Facebook to block and downgrade the
film as much as possible.
“Whether or not the filmmakers managed their blend to
appeal to today’s easily distracted audiences is something that the box offices
will show,” said Sarafian. “Undoubtedly, the final result will also depend on
the success (or failure) of misinformation campaigns that the denialist lobby
will organize. After all, the denial of the Armenian genocide, unlike the
denial of the Holocaust, is unfortunately still fair game.”
Still, for many Armenians who have long awaited a
Hollywood film on the genocide, this is it. The Promise is an epic motion
picture that will introduce general audiences to a tragic chapter of history
that has been shamefully denied for far too long. It is an accomplishment to
which many Armenians will respond with a rousing “apres” (“well-done”).
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder
Not: Yalnızca bu blogun üyesi yorum gönderebilir.