Different Viewpoints; Different Ataturks

History is a slippery floor that it sometimes can be difficult to reflect truths. Writing a
book, giving a lecture about history may not be difficult as filming, especially producing
historical films; requires so much effort, attention, bravery, background and compressive
information. Producer has to give the main idea or purpose in a short time; for this reason,
film may lead to wrong understandings. Due to historical films referred as a historical source
and it became reference to students, producer has to think twice. Between historical films;
documentary films the most difficult one. Telling someone’s whole life in a short time
requires ignoring some details which belong to his/her life. However; while producer think
that some of events were unimportant, other people may think the event which the producer
ignores was the most important detail. This is because differences between visions. Due to
diversity of opinions, the producer of the documentary film takes big risk. Such an event
occurred recent months. Can Dündar who produced a film about Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s
life was criticized too much. The documentary film “Mustafa” was criticized two main points;
however, according to scientific resources while some of criticisms were true, some of them
were unfair.

One of the main criticism is that the film “Mustafa” generally described the private life
of Ataturk; moreover, it focused on the wrong habits of him. Actually, Can Dündar want to
show Ataturk as a person, because people already know him as a great leader, commander and
forward looking politician. However, people think emotionally and they disappointed when
they saw their leader’s weaknesses. For this reason some people criticize that in the film
Ataturk was told as a man who is addicted to alcohol and heavy smoker. Maybe people didn’t
want to accept the scene of that Ataturk smoked 3 pockets of cigarette per day. However it’s
known that in almost all the photos of the Ataturk his hand was seen with cigarette in other
words it is known that Ataturk was really heavy smoker. There is one another controversial
scene, in film Ataturk was projected a man who slept almost all day and wait hope with the
friends who came dinner and drinking rakı together. As Kınross pointed out
(Kınross,1966,p.715) he was an action man but he is a man also have no job to do for this
reason he became addicted to alcohol the thing which replace the ‘action’. Aren’t the
smoking cigarette or drinking rakı normal things that every people did it in their private life or
isn’t that already known that Ataturk smoke cigarette and consume alcohol too much and
again isn’t it known that consuming too much alcohol cause Ataturk’s disease and his death.
With all these truths why these became a problem when they showed in the film? One another
criticism which defend Ataturk’s private life was projected wrong is claim that in contrast to
film Ataturk wasn’t an alone man; however, scientific sources argue different things.
(Kınross,1966) Kinross said that the lifestyle of Ataturk wasn’t really different from a single
army officer’s life. When his visitors left him and when he stayed alone he started to feel pity
for himself(p.718). It is true that Ataturk never married again after his ex-wife Latife. Besides
to this, his friends removed from him, but, I don’t think that his loneliness was reach to feel
pity for himself. Contrarily to this claim özakman defends something entirely different
(özakman,2009) Ataturk’s lifestyle never became non-action with silence and alone. On the
contrary especially last seven years of his life was the active, busy, alive and abundant (p.53).
Actually, although these claims was seen argue same things they mentioned different aspects
of Ataturk’s loneliness. If a man busy with his job or active and abundant this don’t mean that
he isn’t alone. While Kinross describe Ataturk’s psychological situation and his private
situation, Özakman try to defend his argue that Ataturk wasn’t alone by describing Ataturk’s
political life.

Criticism not only focused on that film projected Ataturk’s private life inaccurately but
criticisms also claim that Ataturk’s military career and politic life was told wrong. In order to
make a film “documentary” it must contain person’s career too, but it has to be objective.
First criticism is that the conversation between Vahdettin and Ataturk was given wrong .In the
film before Ataturk was sent to Samsun there were a conversation between Vahdettin and
Ataturk. Vahdettin said to Ataturk; Pasha! Your actions took place in history books but you
must forget this. Pasha you can save our country! In this conversation it can be predicted that
the Turkish War of Independence was planned by Vahdettin. Whereas, Ataturk will be talking
about this conversation after years to show Vahdettin’s incurability because he was charged
Ataturk with saving country as a padishah.Therefore; without giving Ataturk’s comment it
become easy to misunderstanding although the conversation was true. Correspondingly,
scientific sources defend same thing. Özakman (Özakman, 1997) say that I understand the
people who respect to Ottoman dynasty and who want to acquit Vahdettin but real documents
show that Vahdettin didn’t tell of to Ataturk for starting Turkish war of independence
(p.282).Second criticism about the film is that in the film Ataturk was presented a man who
use all the people and situations to reach his aim. There are a lot of scenes in film which are
suitable to this criticism. Therefore the real argument must be that here; can using situations
or using people be problem to do revolution o to reach innovation? People have to change
their criteria of understanding. For example; in the film opening the Turkish Great Assembly
was told like that Ataturk change the date of the opening from 22 April to 23 April because 23
April was a day Friday and he said that the assembly was opening after namaz of Friday and
power will be taken from the quran and prays. Moreover the comment which comes after this
scene is really interesting; the man who announced a month ago the existence of Ottoman
Empire was end, now say that I will recover the sultanate and caliphate. This statement
presented Ataturk as a man who uses religion, religious figures and religious people although
he doesn’t respect them. However; according to (özakman, 2009, p.35) özakman; Ataturk
used religious figures and authorities it is true but he didn’t have any problem with religion or
religious people. Actually the inference from there may that be if true conversations was
given deficient or with wrong comment it will become to easy to misunderstanding; therefore,
people have right to criticize.

All in all; as I mentioned before telling someone’s life in a short time is very difficult.
Besides, if this somebody is a perfect leader, a taboo and has an emotional place in people’s
mind like Ataturk, it will become impossible to reflect exact truths. Actually, people want to
see their leaders always in power and encouraging them; however, people have to think that
their leader is also a ‘person’ they have weaknesses, they have bad habits and they even not
become ‘perfect’ as they want to see them. There are people in turkey who see their leader,
who see Ataturk with all sides of him. Can Dündar (producer of film) was one of them. He
tried to show Ataturk from his view. Who don’t have such an Ataturk in his/her dreams have
right to criticize and film or Can Dündar have right to defend. In reality, in sources there isn’t
an exact or one truth. This is show that everyone, even scientists have different Ataturk
viewpoints. However, this didn’t make any change that Ataturk was one of the most powerful
and respectful leaders of Turks.