Politics of Transnational Film Remakes: The Case of Turkish Cinema Seda Öz University of Delaware, Department of English In 1972, Turkey was the third most prolifiC film produCing Country with 301 movies and ninety perCent of these films were remakes, adaptations or spin-offs of AmeriCan films. IroniCally, in a survey ConduCted by the MGM about the popularity of various film genres, “Turkey was listed with India, Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon as being among the Countries with tastes almost diametriCally opposed to those of AmeriCan audienCes.” Not only were the themes of these films irrelevant to the Turkish audienCe; genres like sCienCe fiCtion and horror were not even established in Turkish Cinema. ReCent sCholarship on remakes, espeCially transnational remakes, eventually leads to disCussions about Cross-Cultural fertilizations, appropriations, dominations of one Culture by another, different forms of exChange between borders, motivations behind speCifiC Changes during the proCess of remaking, and ways these ChoiCes affeCt either the original film or the remake. The foCal point of remakes in Turkish Cinema, however, is not about any Cross- Cultural fertilization or a “triangular relationship they establish among themselves, the original film they remake, and the property on whiCh both films are made” (Leitch, “TwiCe-Told Tales: Disavowal” 39). On the Contrary, the very different triangular relationships on whiCh Turkish remakes depend are interCultural relationships among the industry, the publiC, and the government. Remakes are produCed not in order to Capitalize on the suCCess of the films they are remaking but in order to avoid the resistanCe that would more likely greet more original Turkish films beCause of the politiCal unrest Caused by the 1960 and 1980 Coups d’etat, a tension that revolves around nationalistiC borders. In Current sCholarship, film remakes are generally Compared with former film versions instead of their literary sourCes and Considered to have a Complex relationship with these earlier texts. While they are trying to achieve independent textual status, they also rely on either those texts’ established Cultural memory or their finanCial suCCess. This web of relationships has beCome a deCisive point in their analysis. However, many Turkish moCkbuster films, inCluding Nejat Saydam’s My FrienD Frankenstein (1975), a Turkish remake of Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein (1974) has the potential to redefine the politiCs of remaking, sinCe they do not fit the general tendenCies of these theoretiCal approaches. My Friend Frankenstein (Sevimli Frankenştayn) was released while Mel Brooks’ film had never been sCreened in Turkey or Shelley’s novel translated into Turkish. Even though both remakes use the same plot struCture and even an advertising poster remarkably similar to that of their originals, those textual activators did not trigger any reCognition due to the inacCessibility of the originals After World War I, the Ottoman Empire faced massive Changes. Following the events, in 1923 Empire fell, and the in times of their release in movie RepubliC of Turkey was established. Even though the Country had adopted a parliamentary regime, a single party theaters. In other words, even though ruled the government until 1945. Turkish Cinema, whose birth dates back to the 1910s, flourished first under the the Turkish Frankenstein can be rule of an emperor, then under the single party regime. During these years, the Cinema was Controlled by people Categorized as a remake in terms of with a theatriCal background, and like the nation’s politiCs, its Cinema was dominated by a single person: Muhsin their formalistiC struCtures, the same Ertugrul.. In 1945, Turkey adopted a multi-party regime, with immediate effeCts on the Culture industry. After argument Cannot be made for their 1945, Cinema began to grow as both art and industry, ushered in by a new generation of young actors, actresses, reCeption. and teChniCians. Reviewers emerged along with Cinema journals, magazines, and books. However, the enduring legacy of the single party regime was prevailing politiCal oppression in the Country. EConomiC, Cultural, and politiCal shifts brought Cultural Confusion and unrest, Culminating in the 1960 Coup d’etat.This coup d’etat led to the adoption of a 1961 Constitution whiCh enabled a freer environment for art and Cinema. Cinema began to Consider taboo subjeCts, with soCial realism at the top. Left-wing films like Revenge of the It’s prevailing tone of absurdist Comedy makes My Snakes (Yılanların Öcü -1961) and Dry Summer (Susuz Yaz FrienD Frankenstein the epitome of an apolitiCal film. -1963), strongly influenCed by Italian neo-realism, gained While preserving the same plot struCture, Characters, international suCCess through their CritiCism of Turkish and jokes, the Turkish remake also adds its own Capitalism and oppression. Even though the Constitution Cultural flavor to its narrative. It begins with a séanCe Changed and beCame more liberal, however, people did to whiCh the protagonist, Timur Frank sCares others not. After sixty movie theaters that showed Revenge of the by putting on a mask and acting like a monster. In a Snakes were burned down by Citizens who opposed leftist Culture in whiCh the monster genre had not been inClinations (Çakir-Aydin 15), the industry retreated to safer established, neither a Clash between sCienCe and the topiCs and genres like family dramas, love stories, and supernatural nor the legacy of Frankenstein’s monster adventures. would make sense for the audienCe. HenCe the film emphasizes spirits and their existenCe among us. Moreover, when the monster appears, the monster bears no resemblanCe to earlier Hollywood Frankenstein monsters. On the Contrary, deprived of speCial makeup and Costume, he looks like a regular man. What makes him a monster in the eyes of the audienCe has nothing to do with his resurreCtion. He is sCary beCause he was a murderer when he was alive. When Fatin (Igor) brings a brain for Timur to use, he acCidentally gets the brain of Toros monster, whose story appeared first as a national myth, then beCame a film in 1961, and was novelized by Aziz Nesin in 1965. The Turkish remake emphasizes intertextual links not with Shelley’s novel, the original Mel Brooks film, or the earlier Universal films, but with its own Cultural heritage. However, even though there is a referenCe to a loCal story, any spatial insCription in Saydam’s film is still avoided. BeCause of the politiCal turbulenCe of the Country and the earlier publiC reactions to soCial-realist films that mainly disCussed rural issues about speCifiC Cities, Saydam’s film never identifies its spatial loCation. Another strategy the film uses to avoid politiCal/publiC CritiCism and inCrease its box- offiCe appeal is sexual jokes. After television was introduCed to Turkish households in 1968, people moved away from Cinema. When family audienCes left the Cinema, the industry, seeking to offer something that Could not be found on television, emphasized erotiC films and films with sexual resonanCes to satisfy its new demographiC. “In fact, 131 of the 193 films produCed in 1979 were erotiC or pornographiC in nature” (Singh). Sexuality not only attracted the audienCe but offered indemnity against politiCal CritiCism. Throughout the film, there are many The 1960s and 70s saw remakes of E.T., Superman, Star Wars, Star Trek, Batman, the Exorcist, The WizarD of Oz, sexual jokes and Connotations. As a remake, My FrienD Frankenstein uses the same Magnificent Seven, and many other films. Remakes of these films, and of sCienCe fiCtion and horror films whose musiCal sCore as the original film with a signifiCant Change. It is remixed as a disCo genre had never been established in Turkish Cinema, were strangely irrelevant to the Turkish audienCe. Even so, version, a genre speCifiCally used for erotiC films in Turkey. The fact that Bülent the Turkish film industry largely foCused on remaking AmeriCan films, espeCially on Hollywood sCienCe fiCtion, Kayabaş (Timur Frank) was formerly an erotiC film star also helps audienCe to see the horror, and Comedy, in order to emphasize the Cultural remoteness of their material so that they Could avoid film as a mashup of ComiC and erotiC film genres that minimizes any politiCal governmental, military, or publiC CritiCism, as well as Censorship. As a result, the Case of Turkish Cinema, Consisting overtones. As Constantine Verevis says: “The remake beComes a partiCular instanCe largely of remakes of foreign films that had never been released in Turkey, poses a direCt Challenge to remake not only of the repetition effeCts whiCh Characterize the narrative struCture . but theories that presuppose a Certain familiarity or Cultural memory of the original film. By the 1970s, almost 90 also of a more general repetition – of exClusive stars, proprietary Characters, perCent of Turkish films were remakes, adaptations, or spin-offs (SCognamillo 68). Current sCholarship on remakes patented proCesses narrative patterns and generiC elements” (Film 5). The use of the argues that the eConomiC motive for remaking is the suCCess of the original film and its potential acCeptanCe by a same actor, theme, or visuals refleCts the impact of this repetitive activity on the new audienCe. But Turkish Cinema’s embrace of remakes stemmed rather from internal eConomiC, industrial, and formalistiC struCture of the remake. In My FrienD Frankenstein, however, both the politiCal problems. Similarly, the proCess of Turkish remaking did not emphasize