Karagöz Co-Opted: Turkish Shadow Theatre of the Early Republic (1923–1945) Serdar Öztürk

3ATJ_292-341 6/1/06 11:46 AM Page 292 Karagöz Co-Opted: Turkish Shadow Theatre of the Early Republic (1923–1945) Serdar Öztürk During the early Turkish republic karagöz shadow theatre’s Ottoman patterns were transformed. Reformers attempted to restrict coffeehouses where the art had flourished and developed written texts to replace the improvised practice of the past. They sponsored performances in government-supported community centers and created shows to promote government policies. The efforts meant that an art, which had grown from lower-class satire of the elite was purged of obscene elements, characters were changed to conform to modern ideology, and government control was asserted on what had been a domain of free speech. It is possible that the efforts to restructure the once vibrant art helped hasten its decline. Serdar Öztürk is an assistant professor at Gazi University, Faculty of Communica- tion. In 2005, he published a book (During the Early Republic Era: Cinema, Reception, and Politics [Erken Cumhuriyet Döneminde Sinema Seyir Siya- set]). His dissertation on coffeehouses in the Turkish Republic (1930–1945) was published in 2006 (The Coffeehouse and. Power in the Republic Turkey [Cumhu- riyet Türkiyesi’nde Kahvehane ve Iktidar]). He has published extensively in other formats about social and cultural topics. Ottoman Empire karagöz, the shadow theatre of the coffeehouses, was characterized by sexual and political humor, characteris- tics that it shares with genres like tolubommalata of India, the wayang of Indonesia, and other puppet traditions of Asia and Eurasia.1 This mix- ture of sexual liberty and lampooning those in power is characteristic of rural and lower-class entertainments. One of the conundrums that shadow theatre from Indonesia to Turkey has faced is, what happens to such forms with modernization? In Turkey, as with India (Tilakasari [1968]: 25–28) and Indonesia (Foley 1979: 248–261; Weintraub 2004), Asian Theatre Journal, vol. 23, no. 2 (Fall 2006). © 2006 by University of Hawai‘i Press. All rights reserved. 3ATJ_292-341 6/1/06 11:46 AM Page 293 K ARAGÖZ CO-OPTED 293 the government has intervened in traditional puppetry, enlisting the art to support modernization. Language reform, public health, and governmental economic and social policies may be promoted. While Indian and Indonesian puppet theatres are still in the midst of their transformations, which began only after national independence in the mid twentieth century, the karagöz went through a cycle of reforma- tion prior to World War II and, since then, a process of folklorization. This paper intends to look at the reformist phase and will note that the process of revision probably contributed to the demise of the genre as a living art. While government officials were successful in implement- ing changes, those changes alienate the genre from its roots. While the Turkish experience cannot predict the outcome of these other puppet theatres, I hope that this effort can fill in a little-known era in the his- tory of Turkish shadow theatre, and I believe the episode may provide an instructive model of what not to do if such arts are to be preserved. During the Turkish Republic, founded in 1923 and led until 1945 under the single party rule of the Republican People’s Party, there was a struggle over the Turkish shadow theater. The ruling elite and the common people contested what messages the theatre would Figure 1. The karagöz puppeteers Tuncay Tanbog˘a (Hayali Torun Çelebi) and Orhan Kurt in a view from behind the screen. (Photo: Courtesy of The Traditional Turkish Theatre 1999: 21) 3ATJ_292-341 6/1/06 11:46 AM Page 294 294 Öztürk carry, where it would be staged, and whose voice it would represent. This disagreement resulted in a transformational process. The art began at the Ottoman coffeehouses as a ribald theatre full of political satire; it moved to government cultural centers where the sexual content of the performance was excised and the political messages were aligned with government ideology. Finally, this gentrified theatre was returned to the coffeehouse of the early Republic. My chronological account of this transformation will highlight how karagöz changed in both location and content, pointing out how radical the displacement was and the degree to which it distanced the art from its primary func- tion in Ottoman society. The First Period: Karagöz and the Culture of Coffeehouses Theatrical performances such as the Turkish shadow theater (Tietze 1977: 19) spread with the increase of coffeehouses in the Otto- man Empire dating from about the seventeenth century and continu- ing on into the nineteenth century. Especially during Ramadan, the fasting month, theatrical performances by the nineteenth century attracted audiences interested in the political satire and sexual humor in karagöz. Throughout this most holy month in Islam, no food or drink was consumed during the day, so feasts and entertainments were held after sundown. People flocked to coffeehouses for food for the body and the mind through enjoyment of a karagöz show (22). The political stance of the karagöz had always been that of the little guy criticizing the powerful. Puppeteers and audiences in the coffeehouses were largely common people, and the theatre presented a bottom-up critique of the powerful of Ottoman society and the social constraints that framed their normal life. Even the myth about the theatre’s origin tells of a man who wanted to make the sultan see his officials’ corruption. He created shadow figures and performed a karagöz presenting such behavior before the sultan. The sultan, impressed by the play, punished his corrupt officials and appointed this puppeteer as his grand vizier. Many people followed the example of this ur-puppeteer, infusing karagöz shows with critique (And 1963–1964: 39). The performances of karagöz at nineteenth-century Ottoman coffeehouses were full of political satire, and high officials and grand viziers were fair game. Karagöz was commonly employed as a political weapon to criti- cize political corruption (Hattox 1996: 106). European visitors regu- larly noted the extreme freedom which puppet masters exercised. Méry (1855) noted, “Karagöz defies the censorship, enjoying an unlim- ited freedom.” In comparison, Méry found that France, America, and 3ATJ_292-341 6/1/06 11:46 AM Page 295 K ARAGÖZ CO-OPTED 295 England were much more restricted in political criticism. For him, “Karagöz was a daily newspaper, without security, without stamp, without a responsible editor, a terrible newspaper because it can not write, it talks and sings in front of its numerous subscribers.” Méry claimed that “if in another country a newspaper were to write even a single line of the numerous plays of karagöz,” it would be sufficient to bring about the arrest and exile of the journalist (cited by Kömeçog˘lu 2001: 94). In the words of another nineteenth-century observer, Louis Enault: In Turkey, a country governed by an absolute monarchy and a totali- tarian regime, Karagöz is a character who never deceives himself or is soothed into a sense of security by shutting his eyes to the ills sur- rounding him. On the contrary, a karagöz show is a risqué-revue, as Figure 2. Hacivat and Karagöz are the major characters in the traditional shadow theatre. Karagöz represents the voice of the common man, while Hacivat, who represents higher class ideas, is often mocked. (Photo: Courtesy of The Traditional Turkish Theatre 1999: 25) 3ATJ_292-341 6/1/06 11:46 AM Page 296 296 Öztürk brave as a militant newspaper. No one is spared, except maybe the Sultan. Karagöz passes judgment on the Grand Vizier and sentences him to the prisons of Yedikule. His gibes prove disturbing to foreign ambassadors; he hits out at the Allied Admirals of the Black Sea fleet, and the generals of the Crimean armies at the time of the Turkish- Russian war of 1854–6. (Cited by Kömeçog˘lu 2001: 94–95) In the same period, traveler Gérard de Nerval wrote about the political content and effect on Istanbul coffeehouse clientele. Nerval clarified that karagöz always represented the opposition. Karagöz, he believed, was always the representative of the folk who mocked the nobles or criticized the ruler’s mistakes (cited by Kömeçog˘lu 2001: 57). For example, the French traveler Wanda reported that Hüsrev Pas¸a, the grand vizier of Mahmut II, was mocked by Karagöz for his homosexual preferences (Mehmet Süreyya 1996: 682–683). Wanda witnessed the criticisms against high officials and even the sultan in karagöz plays. For example, in one coffeehouse shadow play a young man wants some advice from Karagöz on which profession he should choose. Karagöz replies, “Since you do not know anything, I advise you to become a chief admiral.” The young man becomes an admiral and attacks rats. The sultan rewards this admiral after his victory, marrying him to his daughter (And 1963–1964: 39; see also And 1985: 294).2 Within the hierarchically stratified society of the nineteenth century, Karagöz exercised extraordinary license. Karagöz’s sexually loaded puns themselves are revolutionary. “Even when there is no political theme or figure, the performance has a subversive political character which expresses itself symbolically in the deliberate violation of officially held cultural norms, values, and linguistic codes” (Kırlı 2000: 164). One finds evidence of karagöz’s licentiousness not only in the report of Western travelers’ observations at coffeehouses but also in the texts written by Nazif Bey, a court puppeteer. Karagöz, the main character of Nazif Bey’s play, utters words with sexual connotations. For example, “kaldırmak,” which literally means “to lift,” connotes the erection of the penis; “yapmak,” which means “to perform,” connotes sexual performance; “aybas¸ı,” which means the first day of the month when salaries are paid, has a connotation of menstruation (Mizrahi 1991: 136).

Load more