The Ottoman Endgame

The Mid East seems in constant turmoil with much blame given to western powers who drew the wrong lines for their own greedy reasons.  There has always been a lot of blame to pass around.  Sean McMeekin gives a different perspective going back just before the Great War with a focus on the Ottoman Empire.  "The Ottoman Endgame" was recommended by Fareed Zakaria.

At its peak the Ottoman Empire extended to eastern Europe, northern Africa, the Arab lands and included many Jews and Christians.  Jews fled Europe for greater safety in Ottoman areas with over a million Jews there in 1900.  By the dawn of the twentieth century the Ottoman Empire was considered "sick" and ripe for picking off territory.  They did control access to the Black Sea which was key for trade with Russia.  Russia, an antagonist to Turkey over centuries saw an opening.  Italy saw an opportunity in Libya.  Fighting in the Balkans, including Serbia and Bulgaria against the Ottoman Empire preceded World War I.

The Great War was precipitated with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife in Serbia on June 28, 1914.  The Ottoman Empire could not afford to be involved as it had a severe financial problem.  Germany, Russia, Britain, France all had their motives.

A German dreadnought outran a British ship in the Mediterranean to end up in Istanbul as an inducement to declare war on Russia and to allow him to patrol the Black Sea.  Also an Egyptian leader wanting to liberate from Britain was vacationing in Bosphorous.  Churchill was anxious to attack Turkey, but was blocked by Kitchener who was concerned about Egypt and India, but not before commandeering two Turkish dreadnoughts that had been built by British ship builders.   Russia, although blocked in was reluctant to push Turkey to war as they had their own Muslim subjects and wanted a better deal before taking sides.

Germans wanted Turkey to declare war, but Turkey had financial constraints including paying military staff.  Germany did some calculations and decided to finance the Ottoman Empire including large amounts of gold.  Turkey waited until they received gold before declaring war.

The British, like the Americans a few decades later saw the oppressed Iraqis  hoping for liberation from the Ottomans.  They found it more difficult than anticipated to fire up the Arabs.

The Armenian Genocide that is sometimes acknowledged is more complicated than I casually thought.  The Armenians were Christians in a Muslim country and wanted to be free.  The Russians were sympathetic and were reached out to by Armenians.  The Ottomans decided it was best to deport Armenians away from where the Russians were, but did set up guidelines that were meant to be humane.  Many of the guidelines were forgotten and Armenians suffered being sent to faraway inhospital sites and died from starvation, exhaustion and Turkish hatred and fear.  To further aggravate the situation Russians were successful in overcoming a Muslim Ottoman city with the help of Armenians.  Turks took revenge and directly killed many Armenians.  Historians argue over how many Armenians died, but it was in genocidal proportions.  

Ironically the British had been requested to ally themselves with Armenians and Russians for a strategic attack.  Armenians from Egypt were ready in large numbers to help this effort, but the British were stuck in a mindset that led to disaster in Gallipoli and ignored the Russians and Armenian requests, despite advice that in hindsight seemed a better use of their resources.  One of a few dissenters was T. E Lawrence, at the time a mere interpreter.

Mustafa Kemal is considered the founder of modern Turkey.  He developed his credibility serving well in the military including Gallipoli.   He is credited with saying "I did not order you to attack.  I ordered you to die." reportedly before a battle.

The Germans tried to stir up a holy war against Brits and Russians but with little success.  Brits suggested Arabs could take over caliphate.

In the 1917 Russian Revolution one of early events was mutinies among soldiers and sailors.  Lenin reached Petrograd (St Petersburg)  with a German military escort in April and immediately demanded an end to imperialist wars, but there was still political maneuvering.  The Russian navy still wanted to conquer Istanbul.  A ceasefire was declared in Nov 1917 which European armies accepted readily.  A little slower on the Ottoman front as Russians were relatively successful.  This allowed a shift of troops, but more importantly helped retain some land.  Leon Trotsky sat down to negotiate and was fairly clever about it, but both Germans and Ottoman military forces tried to seize with some success lands under Russian control.

At the end of the war, the allies ganged up on the Ottoman Empire with Greece, Italy, France  Russia (under Bolsheviks)  and Britain staking out claims to large amounts of land.  Britain (against the advice of Churchill) occupied Istanbul.  Mustafa Kemal rallied military leaders to resist.

America had entered the war in April 6, 1917, but not against the Ottoman Empire.  They were seen as possible peace brokers, but they backed away from the responsibility.  President Wilson was now an invalid.

The Greeks had an advantage for awhile and conquered a lot of what we know as Turkey today.  However, Kemal made some very smart moves gaining gold and weapons from the Bolsheviks, making an agreement with Italy and neutralizing Britain.  Arnold Toynbee testified that the Greeks had committed atrocities against Muslims.  There ended up being an exchange of Turks from Greece and Greeks from Turkey.  Turkey lost Christians and Jews that had helped elevate their cultural level.  Greeks and Turks have argued against one another ever since.  One bright note was an artistic alliance between Zulfu Livanelli and  Mikis Teodorakis, two great artists who performed together many years later.  

France, Britain and Russia negotiated what became known as the Sykes Picot agreement signed on May 16th, 1916 that split up parts of the anticipated concessions by the Ottoman government after their defeat.  Britain was to control what we know as Palestine and over to Jordan and including part of Iraq.  France was to govern the northern part of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and part of southern Turkey.  Russia was to control Istanbul and Armenia.  On November 2nd, 1917 Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour declared in a statement to Walter Rothchild, a representative of the British Jewish community that Britain would accept an facilitate a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but without prejudice to civil and religious rights of non Jewish communities.  Undoubtedly these commitments and their interpretations have affected modern conflicts.  The author contends that ethnic and religious animosities would still have caused conflict almost no matter what boundaries were established.

Mustafa Kemal abolished the caliphate in 1924 and was denounced many years later by Osama bin Laden for doing so.  He is noted for running roughshod to modernize Turkey.

What can history tell us about today's turmoils?  While finishing this up I heard Fareed Zakaria's guest Robert A Worth and then checked a book review.  There is a lot of anger in the Mid-East.  They all want change, but are not tolerant of different views.  One view is that modernization has progressed technically, but socially the pace has been very slow.  Sean McMeekin proclaims that the hatred has existed for a very long time, but had been controlled under the Ottoman regimes.  Although boundaries may have been redrawn imperfectly they only complicate a difficult situation.

Three French movies

In an earlier post I recounted how having been inspired by three French movie trailers to end up reading 3 enjoyable books.  Well the movies were still on the agenda.  Movies have a reputation of cutting out explanations and adding in entertaining, but distorting details.  Do they maintain the spirit of the book or make their own meaning?  You can read my experiences with the books here:   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/05/3-french-novels-inspired-by-3-french.html

My favorite example of the difference is with the Turkish book and novel,  "Bliss."  The author Zulfu Livaneli wrote the book and surprisingly wrote the music for the movie.  The book was as usual in more depth, but actually gave away the movie ending almost at the beginning.  Further in the book the author predicted if a movie was done it would have more of a Hollywood ending which it did and probably why he preferred to write the very enjoyable music.  They both dealt with honour killing and made the horror of it very evident.  Read more here:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/05/turkish-delight-in-book-and-movie-form.html

"Sarah's Key" made me conscious that a book gets into the thinking of the characters more than a film.  I think the general theme of the book did get through with the performances and technical aspects being good.  From the movie trailer the shock was that the French were complicit in the Holocast.  In both the book and the movie that connection is slowly built up.  As in the books the modern day journalist efforts are paralleled with an experience in Nazi held Paris.  The journalist realizes that her husband's family was intimately involved and buried the emotions connected to it.  The mystery is carried into modern times while the obsessive journalist tries to track down Sarah.  Her own family problems become entangled.

Kristin Scott Thomas, most famous for "The English Patient" is an actress I have watched in a variety of French movies.  As she is bilingual it is natural for her to play the American journalist married into a French family.  The actors all make you feel this really happened and the director holds everything together.

"The Hedgehog" was another book that dealt with inner emotions.  3 main characters who all see themselves as "different."  The director and screenwriter,  Mona Achache at age 27 was directing her first movie.  Of the three selected movies only this one did not rely on any big stars.  Mona and the three main actors captured the mood of the book very well.  It is definitely a quirky book from beginning to end, but with characters that grow on you.  A young pre-adolescent girl, Garance Le Guillermie really captured the essence of the literary character who was very intelligent, but took a morbid view of life and gradually saw life more positively.  Josiano Balasko played an old ugly concierge in a luxury apartment building, but had inner beauty that the other two characters came to appreciate.  Josiano played her role perfectly and the viewer came to appreciate there is more to her than meets the eye.  Togo Isaygo played a sophisticated Japanese tenant who befriended both other characters and he fit the role from the book very well

Sometimes when you watch a movie you learn little cultural things that stick, even if trivial.  At one point a musical toilet startles you and later learn that it is a "Japanese thing".

The ending of the movie if anything reflected the book's ending in an even more effective manner.  It will disappoint those hoping for a Hollywood ending, but actually it makes a point about life.  The music running over the end credits is contemplative.  Throughout the movie, the music by Gabriel Yared was good to set the mood and my favorite parts were melancholic with cello and piano.

"delicacy" is the last movie from the three books.  It is unusual in that the author, David Foenkinos teamed with his brother Stéphane Foenkinos to write the screenplay and direct the movie.  Audrey Tatou as the leading lady is always delightful.  I had seen her co-star, Francois Damiens playing a bumbling brother in law in "The Heartbreaker".  In the book were accounts of a lot of trivialities that are part of life and relationships.  The brothers brought in Émilie Simon to write and sing the music which added some emotional support.  The movie captured some of the quirkiness of the book. It is common to put uncommon people together and "Delicacy" gives another version.  A young attractive widow from an ideal marriage meets someone not noticed by other people and and somehow responds to his awkwardness. In the real world we are often amazed and wondering what does she see in him or what does he see in her?  One of life's great wonders.  An enjoyable romance with good humour.

Movies are often inspired by books.  Books are always deeper and movies are selective in capturing the mood.  A good director takes the essence of what the book is trying to convey in a relatively short time.  The director has the advantage of a crew of people including actors, cinematographers, costume, make-up, special effects, music, etc. etc.  The writer has the advantage of our imagination.

Like many people if I like a movie enough I am anxious to read the book to get the fuller story. Sometimes it can work the other way.  I am glad that I read these three books first as reading gives an idea of the depth.  The movies in some ways did capture the essence of the original author and inevitably were forced to leave out some explanation that the reader could appreciate.

For some reason the French are coming up with some top movies, "The Intouchables" was one of my top three for 2012 and one that seems really attractive is "Rust and Bones"

PREDICTABILITY AND ENJOYMENT OF MOVIES

There is a dilemma in trying to analyze our attitudes towards predictability.  We crave the security of being able to predict outcomes, but we are also easily bored.  This post is not intended to be definitive, but suggestive.  Any feedback is most appreciated to help me wrestle with this challenge.

Before we watch a movie most of us have some sort of idea of what to expect.  Will there be a few laughs, will there be a happy romance or a tragedy?  Can we figure out ahead of time who was the murderer or who end up together?  Will there be lots of thrilling action?  Who is the father?  Are the performers attractive?  Does it have a happy ending?

Financing movies is scary.  Those who are lured into financing a movie are looking for predictable profits and most are reluctant to take unnecessary risks.  One way of reducing the risks is to borrow from other successes, such as best seller books, long running plays, foreign language award winning movies and what might be called popular prequels.

When selecting a movie to watch, our moods may be different from hour to hour.  Sometimes we want to forget our troubles and have a good laugh.  Sometimes we want to be scared.  Sometimes we hope our blood will race faster.  Maybe we would like to match our wits with a mystery.  A little romance can be what we require.  Sometimes we want to be surprised.  Film makers recognize these as opportunities.

The English Patient is a book I have not read, but had heard a great deal of praise, in particular by Joe Duda.  Joe actually helped me develop a respect for the author Michael Ondaatje and consequently I have read 3 other books (one of which Joe expressed disappointment). One of the books was "On Editing Movies."  In this book Michael wrote about his admiration for film editing, a skill he had not thought about much before his book was turned to a movie.  The experience can be very frustrating for a novelist, but Michael came out with respect for the film making process.

Earlier I wrote about "Bliss" (book written and movie music scored by Zulfu Livaneli) where I had seen the movie first and read the book second.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/05/turkish-delight-in-book-and-movie-form.html  It illustrates that books provide a better platform for studying in depth and can unleash the imagination.  In "Bliss," the book, the mystery of the movie is revealed near the very beginning.  In the book the author even jokes about avoiding the Hollywood ending that indeed was adopted for the movie version in a captivating manner.  Movies do have some advantages in the sense that a picture is worth 10,000 words and I would add a moving picture with modern technology is more powerful than that.  The limiting factors are time and money.

Most of us, most of the time get bored watching a tv show or movie for more than 90 minutes.  There is quite the challenge of putting the complexity of a novel into that time frame or finding ways to keep attention for a longer time frame.  A more practical goal is to get the essence right and that too is very difficult.  Many screen writers and directors often under pressure from producers make changes in the original material to make it more marketable.  Money and time are closely related.

Money is difficult.  On one hand a movie studio would have better access to large amounts of money than a struggling writer.  But, they need to make a profit and that means controlling costs.  It also means to market to the public they need to consider what they think the public is willing to pay for. The biggest items of expense are big name stars, special effects and promotion.  They are all intended to capture mass attention (or just as often a highly prized niche).  Small budget movies usually have time constraints and are limited in tapping big name stars, special effects and promotion.

Time is also very difficult.  First for the film-maker who especially these days has a specified number of days, often because of contracts of the work team and demands of financiers to get the final product on the market.  From the viewer's point of view we know there is a limit before boredom triggers the law of diminishing returns.  Although the ticket or the DVD has been bought the investors still require the viewers to recommend the movie to anyone who will listen to them and there is the hope in some cases they will be repeat buyers or buy some of the branded trinkets.

Movie trailers and teasers give strong clues about who might enjoy the movie.  This is quite the art. Get attention and not be accused of fraud.  A lot of action in thin slices, perhaps a hint of a plot and lots of big names if available.  Many of us realize that many of the little segments are not in chronological order. A common complaint is that trailers can be very misleading--teasing you with one message, but not delivering.

Foreign films often provide confidence for investors.   Swedish book and movie, "The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo" is  a good example, but there are many others.  A strange phenomena is in India where they have several languages with Bollywood being in Hindi.  They have discovered some movies in other Indian languages such as Tamil, Telegu, Malayalam that even when provided with subtitles can be remade confidently to a niche or completely be redone. 

What I called prequels could be any successful movie that could be backward in history.  Sequels have a long history by extending successful movies.  This has actually worked in many instances, but if overdone can become deadly.

To me a movie is an adventure, a story.  Usually afterwards if I enjoyed the movie I go to check on further information.  Usually I have done research before actually viewing the movie.  Sometimes I think my wife is phenomenal in forecasting a key end result.  Often there is more to a movie than the plot.  Sometimes I feel pretty good understanding some of the background of a movie and other times I love being totally caught off guard.  Would you rather be mystified by a really good magician or would you like to know how he did it?

Editorial addition Oct 2/14.  I added in a photo of one of my favorite movies because it is one of the most unpredictable movies I have seen.  Something like "Sixth Sense" or "The Usual Suspects" where the viewer realizes they have let themselves be misled from the very beginning.  "Kahanni" is like that.  While we like happy or predictable endings we appreciate the truly unexpected endings as long as we don't feel cheated.