Portrayal is fair
-
Tsiakkos — 13 years ago(March 09, 2013 02:00 PM)
I wouldn't know if it was fair if it weren't for my uncle. You are 100% right. My uncle did time as a prisoner in Turkey and he said when he saw this movie it was like relieving his time there. I take his word rather than any other jackass in these boards that tries to defend Turkey a country respnsible for countless atrocities and genocites
An honest unbiased list of the top movies I have watched
http://www.imdb.com/list/-plP1uWQzgE/ -
tolgasoylu_1 — 12 years ago(August 08, 2013 05:06 PM)
BS as hell.In 1970 prisons were run by soldiers(trusted soldiers) so you are saying your uncle was a Turk? also a middle-ranking soldier in army? and he decided to spit out all this Anti-Turkey story? You are not even trying
-
ss336 — 12 years ago(August 09, 2013 06:03 PM)
When someone says they were a 'prisoner' or that they 'did time' in a prison it doesn't mean they were a prison guard! It means they were locked inside a prison against their will, by the law. This may happen if to a person convicted of a crime. A court may order them to be locked up inside a prison.
What this means is his uncle was not necessarily a Turk. His uncle could have been any nationality. He is likely to have committed a crime, and been locked inside a prison. -
Tsiakkos — 12 years ago(August 11, 2013 05:52 AM)
Well there you go talking bs about nothing you know about and calling me a liar without knowing me. I bet you didn't even know Turks invaded Cyprus in 1974 and they are still missing people. They took many prisoners from the invasion (the ones they were lucky at least). If the red cross didn't stop their truck that my uncle was in and wrote the prisoners' names they would have executed them all. And being a prisoner in Turkey that time didn't necessarily mean you were a criminal. Its like the Taliban taking an American to prison and someone saying they did because he was a criminal. And prejudice? When you are outside of the dance you can say whatever you please don't you now. My father's home was taken by force and my parents were forced away from their homeland. If this is not denying of their freedom I don't know what is. And you visited "Istanbul" six times you say and they were friendly. A city that by itself is the meaning of foreign occupation. The ending of a 1000 year golden civilization by a bloodthirsty nation that continues to be like that to this day. You can find friendly people in every country. That doesn't erase the bad things they did to other people and this film is by no means disgraceful. On the other hand quite informative I would say.
-
ss336 — 12 years ago(August 11, 2013 02:41 PM)
I'd just like to add that the movie isn't a documentary. It's one-sided. The director changed his mind later, and that's his right. As a movie-goer I can't be expected to receive historical indoctrination from a movie - it's either art or entertainment or both.
Obviously there were problems with brutality in Turkish prisons for a period in the 1970s and 1980s. But that fact isn't indicated by pop movies like this one. In fact this movie isn't evidence of anything at all. Istanbul's conquest isn't relevant either. Historians say the Byzantines were spent after incessant warring with the Sassanids. Plus the Ottomans (on what basis do you connect them with modern Turkey?) were an unstoppable military force at the time because of innovations in warfare: artillery and massing of organised troops.
In fact there are some questions I would like to ask both of you gentlemen. Why do you both agree on so many things? You seem to agree that modern post-Kemalist Turkey is the same as the Ottoman Empire. I dispute that. The Ottomans fell like the Byzantines and the Sassanids. You also seem to agree that modern Greece, an EU member state, is the same entity as Byzantium. But the Byzantines were done. In short you are both claiming to be the inheritors of extinct civilisations. Why carry this cross? -
Tsiakkos — 12 years ago(August 17, 2013 07:36 AM)
Wth are you talking about? "x empire" does not denote a race or origins of people. The Ottoman Empire consisted of Turks, just as the Byzantine Empire consisted primarily of Greeks, the Roman Empire of Italians, the Persian Empire of Iranians etc. Empire is just many states or tribes ruled by one person called the emperor. Nothing more. The descendants of those people of course didn't perish when the empire collapsed. The Byzantine empire for example was just the continuation of the Roman Empire that collapsed. Does that mean that all the Romans were transferred to Byzantium by your logic?
A list of the top movies I 've watched
http://www.imdb.com/list/-plP1uWQzgE/ -
ss336 — 12 years ago(August 18, 2013 03:24 PM)
It should be obvious what I'm getting at. You are taking a movie made for entertainment, and passing comment on it as if you're deeply offended. You use it as an excuse to launch into a political tirade against Turkey and Turks. As a part of your tirade, you bring up an alleged anecdote about your relative having being imprisoned by the Turks. You say this 'proves' the movie shows the real side of Turkish prisons, i.e. it has some 'factual' elements. The other guy rejects what you say. You say he rejects it because he is Turkish, and use the opportunity to criticize the Ottoman Empire for what you say are examples of barbarism.
It's all too far-fetched. You have made it clear in your post above, and in your previous posts, that you think the modern Turks are responsible for things the Ottoman Empire did. You also claim to have a share in the suffering of Byzantium, when sacked by the Ottoman Empire. The basis for these claims to history are your race (Greek). You claim that this joins you to an ongoing political concern of a defunct empire that no longer exists, against that empire's enemies. It's too far fetched. Do you also lay claim to modern day Iran or Central Asia for instance, just because Alexander the Great conquered those places? Does modern Iran have a claim for damages pending against modern Greece because of the fall of the Achaemenids? -
Tsiakkos — 12 years ago(August 22, 2013 09:44 AM)
I am not going to argue with a person that doesn't understand other people's suffering. What did you not understand of "My father's and mother's house was taken by force and they were forced to start their lives from nothing." And they were not the only ones. 200,000 people out of a total population of 600,000 had the same fate. When I corrected your obvious ignorance about what an empire denotes you try to find another reason to justify your endless babbling. You can call my relative's suffering a lie or whatever you want. You can even berate me and say whatever makes you feel superior if you want. Live in your perfect world fantasy. The Cyprus invasion was in 1974 and all the countries except Turkey are not regognising the false nation they made in the north of the island and Cypriots are not allowed to go take their land back. But you wouldn't know that the ignorant little s*** you are right? Talking out of your a** about things you don't know with the sole purpose of berating people through the internet. People you don't know, you never met and you will never ever meet.
A list of the top movies I 've watched
http://www.imdb.com/list/-plP1uWQzgE/ -
washcloud — 10 years ago(March 29, 2016 05:41 PM)
the thing is that "truth lies" (as usual) "in between" :
First of all this (the film) is supposed to be the depiction of a certain person's experiences. Experiences of a very narrow range of course, since Billy Hayes spent all of his years in Turkey incarcerated (minus the time he was supposed to have spent as a visiting tourist).
however we all have by now heard that the actual Billy Hayes has been contesting the validity of numerous incidents presented in the film.
It is also true though that modern Turkey has been predominantly run by militaristic regimes. Which means that it nearly comes to being natural that its prisons circa 1970 must have possibly been, to say the least, quite undesirable a place to be.
Plus, Turkey, a quite large state consisting of various standing-out ethnicities (Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Jews - and probably some more), has unfortunately been suffering from timeless issues such as extreme poverty of the most part of its rural population and illiteracy. Especially in the far regions of Anatolia.
The cherry on top being Turkey's ongoing politics, considering neighboring nations. (Us) Greeks have quite a lot to say about "1922", "the '50ies", "1964" and the invasion of (brotherly to Greeks) Cyprus in 1974
To be exact, modern-day Turkey has possibly been even worse than the once ever-expanding Ottoman Empire.
And last but not least lets not forget all the political/ideological pogroms Turkish citizens (of "pure Turkish breed") themselves have been enduring even today.
so what should the final verdict about Oliver Stone's/Alan Parker's "Midnight Express" be? Were they "right" about "slandering" a whole state/nation with their film?
Well. They sure did not take the time to contest fictional-Billy-Hayes' idea about "that nation of pigs", by juxtaposing Turkish poets for example. Or Turkish people that had suffered or even died fighting for more democracy.
In my opinion, facts (or even fiction) were systematically blown out of proportion in this film, and that's just that.
then again, I wonder, how maybe much better "Turkey" has become after having been slandered in this fashion.
Memory is a wonderful thing if you don't have to deal with the past