1Film studies continually broaden their reach by contributing to various social science disciplines, and they are always addressing richer and richer research subjects. Film distribution, the demand for new productions and reproductions, as well as cinema attendance patterns have for the past several decades formed the basis for increasingly researched academic areas. The following investigation presented in this article lies at the crossroads of these research areas and examines the role of cinemas at French Cultural Centers (Centres Culturels Français in French, or CCF, nowadays known as the Institut français) in developing what Pierre Sorlin calls cinephile “circles.” Such circles include not only Turkish film producers and directors, but also Turkish film critics, educators specializing in cinema and social science researchers who study films. This research topic relies on various historical and sociological cinema studies. Such analyses tend to emphasize how cinematic forms of expression and cinematic practices are legitimized by film professionals who develop a “cinematic” body of knowledge by seeing films, given the lack of specialized institutions (such as film schools).1 The exploratory work in this article was realized through an introspective approach. This is because “cinema” programming at the French Cultural Center2 of İstanbul also has a place in the author’s personal history as a cinephile. As part of the investigation, a qualitative approach was also adopted, and fieldwork was subsequently conducted in İstanbul and Giresun through one-on-one, semi-structured interviews.3 These were carried out with filmmakers, film critics and teaching staff at several different universities’ film departments – all of whom have patronized the cinemas at the French Cultural Centers of İstanbul and İzmir. Thirteen interviews were conducted in total, seven of which were with women and six of which were with men. Among these thirteen interviewees, five were film studies professors, two were film critics, two were film producers, three were directors and one was a photographer. Three of them were under 45 years old, seven were between the ages of 50 and 60, and three were more than 60 years old.

Cinephile circles and the importance of creating a discourse on cinema

Recognizing cinema and its three-part function as a form of art, as an industry and as a cultural object means analyzing the relationship between the filmic work or product, its creators and its audiences. In other words, the existence of cinema depends on a confluence of and equilibrium between the supply and demand relevant to the art market or to any other marker. If adjusting supply in accordance to demand is a prerequisite of supporting and/or expanding film markets, “producing” and reproducing demand is another. In the cultural and artistic fields (and especially in the field of cinema, a relatively new development in human history), the re/production of demand is primarily achieved by developing and circulating a discourse on cinema and cinematic practices. As Emmanuel Ethis points out, this trend can be observed in the early days of film history among producers: “in 1908, the Lafitte Brothers established the Film d’art movement and elaborated on all of the components a film screening: providing public information, distributing advertisements, receiving news coverage and film criticisms. All of these elements played a role in constructing and reproducing a ‘discourse’ on cinema.”4 Sorlin similarly emphasizes the importance of such a discourse when referring to what he calls the boundaries of the film production circle: “The function of these boundaries is not to offer in-depth evaluations, to explain things to audiences or to help them form their own opinions. Rather, its function is to make audiences discuss cinema and to ensure that everyday films have a place in journals, television and one-on-one conversations. In short, these boundaries provide what might be referred to as foundational support for promoting film ‘buzz’ […] the essential point being that cinema should exist beyond theater walls as an object of discourse.”5

2These comments on the importance of such discourse become all the more relevant when considering that cinema itself is nothing more than a standardized cultural object, produced with analogous objectives and received in mostly the same way by all publics. Just as audiences (in the plural) are talked about, cinemas are similarly discussed in a manner that tends to emphasize a film production’s national and local identity, or even its affiliation with a particular artistic mode of expression (and consequentially, a certain aesthetic taste). The basic distinction here is the divide between so-called popular and arthouse cinema. By its very definition, arthouse cinema is not created from a film production which is driven by audience demand but is instead the result of a creator’s passion for artistic expression. This thusly necessitates a specialized discourse which generates and sustains the interest of cinephile audiences.6

3Cinephile circles all over are responsible for promoting arthouse cinema and introducing it to others. These circles come from all social backgrounds, especially those lacking cultural capital. Some of them are directly involved in passing on and developing cinematic knowledge in a hands-on way, whether through teaching or criticizing film. Ethis refers here to the concept of “cultural legitimacy” as defined by Pierre Bourdieu and Alain Darbel.7 The term is used to describe institutions such as schools, universities, critical reviews, film festival juries, etc. which generate and foster a discourse on cinema. The concept can also refer to specific cinemas as somewhat legitimizing projection spaces as places of “cultural worship.”8

4Several research studies come to the conclusion that in 1970’s, cinemas in France began to become more focused in their aims. This occurred at the same time that a sense of cinephilia was gaining momentum in the country. Cinephilia’s growing presence was aided over the years by several key developments related to the creation of a discourse on cinema: cinema-specific journals were being founded (notably Cahiers du Cinéma), film festivals were being launched and cinema was being incorporated into the curricula of social science and humanities courses at various universities, until eventually educational institutions specializing in cinema were established. As a result of these changes, a new form of cinema came into being. This film movement was accompanied by new ways of thinking about cinema and new theoretical works which aimed to construct a cinematic form of knowledge, as evidenced by the formation of the Nouvelle Vague for example.

5All of these developments, on the one hand, helped produce/reproduce a discourse on cinema. On the other hand, along with certain educational establishments, they assisted in cultivating cinema culture by performing an academic, industry-related and more broadly cinephile function.

Cinephilia and the development of cinephile circles in Turkey

6Even though cinema arrived in Turkey at virtually the same time it did in Europe, its institutionalization (especially as an industry) came much later. However, the very first film screenings date back to the end of the Ottoman Empire, which was at that time was involved in a successive series of wars leading to the Empire’s eventual replacement by the Republic of Turkey in 1923. In this post-war environment (especially following the War of Independence), film producers, distributors and movie theater owners became more organized in a rather handcrafted way, particularly in terms of adapting to local conditions.

7In Turkey, cinema became by far the most popular cultural activity during the period of time spanning from 1960 to 1980, which came to be known as the “Golden Age” of Turkish cinema. Not only were national film productions booming, but so were “foreign” films. Admittedly, the vast majority of productions were popular films, but there were also filmmakers who were directing films in their own language. Thus, Turkish cinema established its own stylistic movements and schools of thought, such as social realism or even a Turkish “national cinema.” On the other hand, Turkish film distributors did not have fixed rules when it came to purchasing the rights for foreign films, due to the lack of an economic policy for this market up until the 1990’s.9 Import restrictions and censorship led to the rather late arrival of many film releases in Turkey. Even though priority was given to major Hollywood, family-friendly comedies, auteur films were also being screened from time to time.10 The author of this article personally had the opportunity in the 1960’s to see Fellini’s La Dolce Vita and Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai at the open-air cinema in İzmir.

8The early 1960’s were also characterized by a distinct shift towards sociopolitical freedom in Turkey. In fact, despite the 1960 military coup d’état, the new Constitution of 1961 (the most liberal constitution in Turkey’s history at that point) established the legal basis for democratic movements that would come to define the following decade. Intellectuals, students and artistic communities took advantage of this shift and explored new ways of thinking, new forms of art, new developments in an environment now full of open discussions, new debates and newly founded journals.

9This shift towards liberalization was reflected in a growing interest in cinema, especially among networks who had access to European culture. Some considered cinema as a form of artistic expression, while others saw it as way to spread ideas. The Turkish Cinematheque was established in İstanbul around this time, aided by Henri Langlois himself. Cine-cubs started to pop up in universities as well. The growing interest in cinema also manifested in the desire to promote Turkish film history, as evidenced by the relocation of the Turkish Film Archives to Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University in İstanbul.11

10As was the case in France, cine-clubs in Turkey acted as a way to educate young people about political issues, and could also be mobilized in the struggle to represent political issues through film.12 The Turkish “Sinematek” (or Cinematheque) for example had since its inception brought together (generally leftist) intelligentsia, whose discussions about cinema and politics completely enlivened theater lobbies as social spaces. To the point that the Sinematek also established a divide between people who criticized filmmakers for promoting popular Turkish cinema, and people who criticized filmmakers for creating Western-style films that were influenced by European cinema.13

11In any case, the years from 1960 to 1970 made up a period in which discussions about cinema thrived and became more in-depth, essentially making cinema the seventh form of art. Serpil Kırel notes for example that this was also the era when filmmakers and film critics rubbed shoulders at meetings and in the pages of film journals, where many debates between the two took place. For these intellectuals, films that were different from Yeşilçam-era productions had to be made (the term “Yeşilçam” refers to mainstream cinema of the era, box office hits).14 It was thusly also at this time when new generations of cinephiles began to make their own films. Arthouse films could be seen on cinema screens, especially films that were part of the Turkish “social realism” movement and were made by auteurs like Lütfi Akad and Yılmaz Güney. Turkish films were also starting to win major awards at international film festivals.

12Despite Turkey’s emerging auteur cinema and growing sense of cinephilia, educational programs aimed at training for various film professions were not set up until later. The first film department was founded at Ankara University’s School of Communication in 1965, but the curriculum remained purely theoretical until 1976 when the first film was produced there through the support of UNESCO. Around this time, film departments were established at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University (in İstanbul in 1976), at the University of Aegean (in İzmir, 1976), at Anadolu University’s School of Communication (in Eskişehir, 1977), and finally at Marmara University’s School of Fine Arts (1982) and School of Communication (1986) in İstanbul.

13The first generation of students at these film departments encountered various obstacles during their studies. All of the interviewees from this first generation stress the fact that schools lacked the necessary technical equipment, film archives and appropriately qualified professors.15

14Just a few years after the introduction of film studies, Turkey went through the traumatic experience of a military coup d’état (on September 12, 1980), followed by the establishment of a regime which almost totally restricted liberties. This resulted in the very strict censorship of media and television (which was at that time under a public monopoly). Towards the end of the decade, Turkish national cinema faced serious difficulties and was in danger of completely disappearing.16 The cinematic atmosphere that developed at the time, as will be seen below, determined attendance at French Cultural Centers and assigned to them the symbolic identity of a “realm of freedom” for cinephiles who were regulars at the Centers.

The French Cultural Center: a place of education and socialization

15In the 1980’s, young students began to frequent the cinemas at the French Cultural Centers of İstanbul and İzmir. Moreover, the increased attendance of students reflected the need for proper educational programs and underlined cinemas’ role in developing a sense of cinephilia. As one film critic who was interviewed explained, “[d]uring short film festivals (at the CCF of İstanbul), we (students at Marmara’s School of Commerce) took up at least two, sometimes three rows of seats, to the point that Mr. Etikan (the festival organizer) would sometimes say to us, ‘there are a lot of people waiting outside, you already attended two screenings, give up your seats to the people waiting outside and come back later.’ As a matter of fact, we would sometimes spend the whole day here.”17 This was also what one professor currently teaching at Ordu University’s College of Fine Arts emphasized when talking about the French Cultural Center of İzmir: “When we were students, I can honestly say that there were days when we would get to the cinema in the morning and stay there until the evening.”

16The interviewees for this investigation referred to their personal experiences at the CCF as part of their student life at the time, even discussing the place as if it was attached to their campus. A number of interviewees also mentioned the role of educators in developing their sense of cinephilia, starting with teachers at Galatasaray High School, a French-language school located in the same district of İstanbul as the French Cultural Center. As one film critic expressed, when they were in high school, “French teachers brought us to the CCF to see films, and then subjects brought up in the film would be part of an upcoming the test. Sometimes French teachers would get involved in cinema programming to make sure we would see the film they wanted us to. We came to see the film and then discuss it in class afterwards, write essays about it, etc.” These quasi-mandatory screenings were also cited by one director and two current university professors who were reminiscing about their old professor who taught at Marmara University (in İstanbul) at the University of Aegean (in İzmir). This professor in particular recommended that they go the French Cultural Center to see the classics.

17The same outlook of certain professors in the 1980’s was also adopted by professors in the following decade. One professor at Marmara University who herself used to regularly visit the CCF cinema when she was a student, said that when she became a professor, she invited her classes to go to film screenings at the French Cultural Center. She noted that the cinema programming schedule was still hung up on the film department’s events board at the university. “We would often run into our students when we went to see a film at the CCF, so we could discuss the film after the screening or sometimes in class.”

18While some students during the 1980’s were encouraged by their professors to go to the cinema at the French Cultural Center, others were already regulars there. They had discovered films there in the past, as well as a certain type of atmosphere which transformed the Center into a “location” of cinema culture more broadly. One producer noted during his interview that him and his friends used to, “skip class and go to the cinema at the CCF.” His companion during the interview, a film director, added that they “learned much more at the Cultural Center than in classes.” One of the leading auteurs of New Turkish Cinema who studied film in İzmir also stated that, “the films I saw at the CCF played a major role in developing my sense of film culture.”

19The French Cultural Centers of İstanbul and İzmir also represented a “location” to meet with friends and socialize with cinephile circles who went there in their younger years. One film critic thus explained that the Cultural Center was, a “meeting place for friends. At Galatasaray High School in eleventh and twelfth grade, we would go straight to the CCF after school and meet up at the cafe. We almost never went home without stopping by the CCF first.” This is also what one film producer expressed when referring to the French Cultural Center as “a ‘home away-from-home’ in the heart of the city. We set up university work sessions there, ran into friends at the cafe.” He also emphasized that coffee prices were affordable for students.

20Such testimonials confirm that apart from being a meeting place for friends, the French Cultural Center was also a place where young students and working citizens got to know people who were part of cinephile circles. The interviews also underline the importance of the bonds that were formed between these cinephile circles and representatives of French political culture. As one film critic even explained, they used to “always meet people with whom you could talk about cinema; people who knew what you were talking about. Then there were audiovisual attachés, managers with various projects they were working on – proposals that warmed your heart. We all spoke the same language and it was lovely.”

21In addition, as one younger documentary filmmaker and university lecturer describes, the French Cultural Center still functions as a place of socialization today: “What is great about the CCF of İzmir is that it is a complete space… from its garden to everything else. Once in a while, the CCF would host cocktail parties, etc. We would chat with friends, but it was impossible not to listen in on other people’s conversations. Suddenly, everyone started talking together, the circle opened up and widened.”

A place of encounter with “real cinema” and film festivals

22Particularly in the 1980’s and 1990’s, the French Cultural Centers of İstanbul and İzmir functioned as an alternative form of film education. Since there was no cinematheque or even film archives accessible in universities at the time, these establishments were considered “valued assets” by loyal filmgoers when it came to cinema programming. Everyone interviewed during this investigation tended to highlight this as a central feature of the CCF. For example, as one film director who used to study at the University of Aegean put it, “I started to encounter real quality films at the CCF of İzmir.” Similarly, another filmmaker and one film critic used the exact wording of “real quality film” to specify that they could see films at the CCF that could not be seen anywhere else.

23Every interviewee mentioned in this article listed off the “unforgettable” films they saw at the French Cultural Center. The films mentioned included a wide variety of world cinema classics (i.e., Kurosawa, Buñuel, Visconti) and French classics (i.e., Tati, Truffaut, Varda, Duras), as well as films that had never been projected in Turkey before. One film critic mentioned for example that they, “saw the films of Sacha Guitry [there]… Can you imagine? We had no idea that these films existed.” There were also certain screenings that sparked a “phenomenon” in Turkey, such as Truffaut’s The Last Metro. One film studies professor interviewed went as far as to say that, “as soon as the screening schedule was released, I started counting the days until the showing.” Another film critic noted that, “all of İstanbul was there.” Indeed, there are certainly a lot of regular attendees at the French Cultural Center in İstanbul: students, cinephile circles and film lovers. Among the attendees was the author herself, who attended screenings just as enthusiastically as the individuals interviewed and has also kept the Cultural Center guarded in her personal memory.

24Film audiences at the French Cultural Center maintained the firm belief that the quality of films projected there was so excellent that, as one professor interviewed explained while recalling their own experiences, “we never paid attention to the screening schedule. Even if we knew nothing about the film, we were sure that it wasn’t going to disappoint us.” It could be said the CCF is arguably similar to some arthouse cinemas in France in this respect. Ethis gives the specific example here of the Utopia theater in Avignon, articulating that:

“Like any legitimate institution capable of exercising its own symbolic authority, the Utopia attempts to impart to its spectators a principled outlook that includes a commitment to specific cultural causes which they can take a role in. Their choice in a particular projection location indicates such a commitment, as well as a trait that they can add to their multitude of identities. […] Regulars will say, ‘I’m going to the Utopia tonight,’ relegating the actual film being projected to a comparatively ‘secondary’ role through the way they word their statement.”18

25In the 1990’s, the French Cultural Center of İstanbul also became the premiere location of film festivals. At first, there was the İstanbul International Film Festival (originally known as İstanbul Film Days), followed by more specialized and themed festivals such as the İstanbul International Short Film Festival, the International 1001 Documentary Film Festival and the Filmmor International Women’s Film Festival on Wheels. These festivals were unforgettable for CCF regulars. Interviewees specifically mentioned these events in their testimonials, showing that audiences at the CCF of İstanbul’s cinema were the same ones who attended film festivals. In other words, they were “experienced” cinephiles who, as one director interviewed put it, “fell in love with cinema.”

26The warm reception of film festivals at the French Cultural Center of İstanbul was recognized as a full-fledged stance in favor of cinema in general. It also represented an approval of Turkish arthouse cinema, which was in the midst of growing and thriving. The International Short Film Festival, for example, had an almost mythical status among the film critics and filmmakers interviewed over the course of this investigation. As one film producer explained, he was deeply affected by several films shown there; and another filmmaker interviewed even listed all of the film titles and directors who were sources of inspiration for her.

A place of cultural worship, a symbol of refined culture and freedom

27Even though the testimonials presented in this article centered on cinema attendance, practically all of them at least touched on the other cultural activities at the French Cultural Center (particularly in İstanbul) that impacted them. One film critic outlined that, “it was a true cultural center. It was not just a cinema, but also a space for theater festivals and exhibitions. Now that I think about it, it was really ‘the’ only cultural center.” Another professor interviewed emphasized that exhibitions, especially those that were themed or centered around cinema and specific filmmakers, greatly influenced her. Discussions with artists also seem to have left an impression on the collective memory of cinema regulars: film premieres and projections followed by discussions with directors (especially when they were part of film festivals) were often cited by interviewees.

28Similarly, the library at the French Cultural Center occupies a special place in interviewees’ memories. This was especially true for French-language speakers and for individuals who were enrolled in French classes at the CCF. One film critic claimed for example that, “when it came to the library… I was addicted. I read all the cinema-related books.” This very critic later went on to write articles and other works that were certainly inspired by the CCF’s bibliophilic and cultural richness.

29One last important point that the filmmakers interviewed kept coming back to was that the CCF in its audiovisual and French cultural missions strove to develop the discussion and activities surrounding “New Turkish Cinema.” By the late 1990’s, the “new filmmakers” movement was planning out new initiatives and was thinking of holding some of their meetings at the CCF, since they were already going there for film screenings. In the early 2000’s, the CCF of İstanbul was also where officials from industry agencies met to discuss problems in cinema and in the film industry, prepare and enact intellectual property regulations, investigate distribution issues and start building a national film center.

30When examining the underlying discourse present in the interviews conducted, the “true” quality of culture is expressed in the other values and issues that are mentioned. These in turn develop a sense of identity in the eyes of (and in the collective memory of) cinephile circles at the French Cultural Center. It is a place where film heritage is open to a special range of audiences: students, academics, filmmakers, etc., where the public is welcomed with various cultural and artistic events, and where people can socialize (especially for professional reasons). This place is all the more invaluable for women, who tend to stress that it is a “decent” environment. Interviewees specifically used this wording to emphasize that before the 2000’s, the Taksim/Beyoğlu district of İstanbul (where the CCF is located) had become less and less accessible since the majority of filmgoers were going to cinemas that programmed pornographic films and to traditional cafes reserved exclusively for men.

31However, it should be noted that the idea of “culture” is considered by most audiences as a result of increased freedoms. Similar to the notion of “real” cinema, culture can only survive and thrive in an environment that is open to new forms of expression and new ideas, completely free of censorship and repression. This desire for personal freedom among those who currently make films in Turkey can be ascertained in several of the interviews gathered from regulars at the French Cultural Center. During the 1980’s, in the aftermath of the military coup which led to a climate of widespread repression in the country, the Cultural Center was viewed as “an oasis,” “a place of escape” and “a lifesaver.” It was, as one film director called it, “an island… a liberated zone.” He adds that this zone was not only free from the opposing cultural forces of the military regime, but it was also free from the increasingly invasive presence of popular culture in the 1990’s.

Now what? Fieldwork translates into research-action

32Extensive methodological and social science work, as well as the qualitative, one-on-one interviews conducted for this article, often provide more data than expected at the beginning of a research investigation. There are also instances when fieldwork which did not originally have this objective in mind is translated into research-action. This was exactly what happened in the case of the research conducted here on cinephile circles who frequent French Cultural Centers in Turkey. As previously mentioned, the majority of the interviewees went to the CCF mostly during the 1980’s and 1990’s. Over the course of the interviews, individuals were questioned about their current practices and concluded that they were much less likely to go to the CCF nowadays.

33When compared against what has been said during the interviews, three groups of factors seem to determine this relative decrease in audience attendance. The first group of factors is sociological, as it relates to the age of audiences. Individuals were more likely to go to the French Cultural Center when they were younger; in fact, student audiences went most regularly to the CCF. Not only did interviewees recall their youth in the 1980’s, but moreover three of the interviewees from younger generations emphasized that they started going to the Cultural Centers in İstanbul and İzmir when they were studying at university in the 2000’s. This point is made all the more important since cinephilia (and film education more generally) develops mainly during youth. As Ethis points outs: “the training and education that take place during encounters with cinema take shape in this generational space (between the ages of 15 and 35). […] It is during this particular time that tastes, and therefore behaviors, are formed.”19

34The second group of factors could be described as related to cultural economy. During the 1980’s and 1990’s, cultural initiatives in general, and cinema activities in particular, were very limited in number. At present, due to private and nonprofit initiatives, İstanbulites have many more options at their disposal.20 When it comes to cinema, technological developments have created more opportunities for cinephiles, and various forms of media have also impacted general attendance levels at cinemas. In addition, programming at Başka Sinema (Başka Cinema in İstanbul) is considered by some of the interviewees as unsatisfactory when compared to the mythical programming of the 1980’s. As one film critic elaborated, “in the end, even if the Başka Sinema offers arthouse films, it is above all a commercial operation.”21

35Finally, a last group of political factors should be mentioned. The first factor was reflected in the testimonial of one film studies professor interviewed, who insisted that following the military coup, France paid more attention to the demands of Turkish intellectuals and elites (including in the implementation of French cultural missions). These Turkish intellectuals and elite were, more than anyone else, French-language speakers – despite the declining “popularity” of French culture among elites due to the increasing Americanization of Turkey. The second factor (perhaps the most important one) is the off-putting effect of security measures implemented at the French Cultural Center. The CCF can no longer be this “cozy” place that you can just casually drop by for a coffee, before heading home after the school day: you have to present your ID, walk through reinforced armored doors, etc. Even though precautions are taken to mitigate the threat that international terrorism poses, Turkey (like France) has often been targeted by terrorist attacks. The idea that the CCF is an oasis in the middle of a desert of police measures implemented in the 1980’s following the military coup d’état has been replaced by a location that is, at the very least, not easily accessible.

36To conclude, the French Cultural Center nowadays is mainly considered the preferred institutional partner and major supporter of film festivals that do not have access to Turkish public funding. It remains preserved in the memory of the “youth” from the 1980’s and 1990’s as a place of refined culture – which may have lost its virtually monopolistic status of yesteryear, but not its symbolic value as a “true cultural center.”