Fetih 1453 is the Turkish title of a historical drama which premiered in 2012.
The Turkish word Fetih means “Conqueror.” Outside Turkey, the film was released with different titles in English, for instance Battle 1453 and Battle of Empires 1453.
Here is some basic information About this drama:
** Director: Faruk Aksoy
** Budget: perhaps 17 million US dollars
** Run time: 155 minutes
Fetih 1453 is based on a true story: the siege and conquest of Constantinople in 1453.
When the Ottoman Empire conquered Constantinople, it was the end of the Byzantine Empire (aka the Eastern Roman Empire).
It was also the end of an era. Many historians use this event to mark the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of Modern History.
For the Ottoman Empire, it was the beginning of a period with territorial expansion which lasted until 1683 when the Ottoman army failed to conquer the Austrian capital Vienna.
The city by the Bosporus Strait is known under three names:
# 1. It was founded as Byzantium by Greek pioneers around 600 BC.
# 2. In AD 330 it was re-founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, who named it Constantinople after himself.
# 3. Later, it was known as Istanbul. It was the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Today it is no longer a capital; it is the largest city in the Republic of Turkey.
The cast includes the following:
The first group
** Mehmet II (1432-1481), sultan 1451-1481 – played by Devrim Evin
** Ulubatli Hasan (1428-1453), friend and mentor of Mehmet – played by Ibrahim Celikkol
** Emine Gülbahar Hatun (1432-1492), Mehmet’s wife – played by Sahika Koldemir
** Urban (ca. 1400-1453), Hungarian master builder – played by Erdogan Aydemir
** Era, Urban’s adopted daughter [a fictional character] – played by Dilek Serbest
The second group
** Constantine XI Palaiologos (1405-1453), Byzantine Emperor 1449-1453 – played by Recep Aktug
** Giovanni Giustiniani Longo (1418-1453), a knight from Genoa – played by Cengiz Coskun
** Nicholas V (1397-1455), Pope in Rome 1447-1455 – played by Ali Riza Soydan
While this drama is based on a true story, it is not a documentary film. It is a dramatized version of events. Not everything happened exactly as shown here. Some details may have been added, altered or excluded for dramatic reasons or practical purposes. But the basic story is true.
Historical accuracy was not a major objective for the director. It was more important for him to create a movie with a dramatic story and spectacular images.
Throughout the film, Faruk Aksoy does what he can to make sure that the winner (the Muslim Ottoman Empire) is presented in a positive light, while the loser (the Christian Byzantine Empire) is presented in a negative light.
What do reviewers say about this drama?
Here are some results:
40 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)
52 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)
65 percent = IMDb
In my opinion, the rating on IMDb is too high, while the first rating on Rotten tomatoes (the critics) is more appropriate.
Why?
What is wrong?
Let me explain:
As far as I can see, this drama has two major problems:
# 1. The first problem concerns the cinematography
# 2. The second problem is the numerous violations of historical accuracy
Cinematography
The first problem can be illustrated by looking at three aspects: language, actors, and sequencing.
(1) In the first scene (set in Medina in AD 627) the language is Arabic. Apart from this scene, the only language that is spoken in this film is Turkish.
In the real world, several nationalities were involved in this conflict: the sultan spoke Turkish; the Byzantine Emperor spoke Greek; while the Pope in Rome and the knight from Genoa spoke Italian.
But in the drama, they all speak Turkish. They all sound the same. This makes it harder to find out who is who. From a cinematographic point of view this is not a good idea.
(2) All actors are Turkish, no matter what role they play. The male actors chosen for this film look so much alike, with black hair and a black beard. This makes it harder to find out who is who.
One example is Hasan and Giustiniani, who are both in love with the fictional character Era. I wonder why the director choose two actors who look almost like twins for these two roles.
Another example concerns Mehmet II, who was born in March 1432. When the siege began in April 1453, he had just turned 21. Devrim Evin who plays the sultan was born in 1978. When the film premiered in 2012, he was 33. In other words: he was 12 years older than the person he is supposed to portray.
(3) Many locations are used in the film: in addition to Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire, and Edirne, capital of the Ottoman Empire, we also have the Vatican in Rome, and the Italian city Genoa.
When the director jumps from one location to the next, it is not always clear where we are. And he jumps quite often. Many scenes are quite short, because the director wants to keep us up-to-date with events in all locations.
One example is a scene 31 minutes into the film:
Some riders are pursued by other riders. Who are they? What is going on? Who are the riders and why are they being pursued? There is a fight. Why are they fighting?
When the fight is over, we see a glimpse of the dead man’s bag. Only then do we understand what this was about: a Turkish agent (Hasan) has stopped a Byzantine courier who was carrying a secret message. In the next scene he hands it to the sultan.
In a mystery movie, in a detective story, the director may try to confuse the audience. This is, in fact, a basic element of the genre.
But Fetih 1453 is a historical drama. The director is supposed to help the viewer understand who is who and what is going on.
Having Turkish actors who look alike and speak the same language - no matter where we are - is not helpful. In some cases, it creates confusion.
As you can see, the cinematography is simply not as good as it should be. A professional director who has a large budget at his disposal could and should be able to get a better result than this.
Historical accuracy
The second problem is the numerous violations of historical accuracy.
I know there is a concept called artistic license. I do not object to this concept. A director may use it from time to time. He may for instance explain something that is very completed in a simple way. But it should be used sparingly. If you ask me, Faruk Aksoy uses it too often and the result is not a better product.
** In the drama, Mehmet is a monogamous man who has only one wife. In the real world, he had three additional wives. Every Ottoman sultan had a harem, but this part of the palace is never shown here and the word “harem” is never mentioned.
** According to the drama, the elite of Constantinople lead a life of luxury, with plenty of food and wine.
In one scene there are dancing girls who are not wearing much; in another scene the emperor is sitting in a pool flanked by young girls wearing bikinis.
In the real Constantinople of 1453, there was not much opulence.
The message of the drama is clear: the Ottoman Empire has a high moral standard, while the Byzantine Empire has a low moral standard. In both cases the message is highly misleading.
** In the drama, Urban refuses to build a cannon for the defence of Constantinople. He wants to escape with his daughter (who is a fictional character). Just before they are arrested by the police, they are saved by an agent from the Ottoman Empire (Hasan).
In the real world, Urban offered to build a cannon for Constantinople, but the emperor had neither the materials that were needed nor the money to pay him.
After being turned down by emperor, Urban offered his services to the sultan who had the materials that were needed and who was ready to pay.
** The introduction of Urban’s daughter allows the director to add a romantic twist: Hasan falls in love with Era, and little by little she falls in love with him. In one scene they are having a peaceful picnic by a river. In another scene they are doing something else.
The fictional character is used to create a love triangle, because the knight from Genoa is in love with her. They met in Genoa. When she lived there, he asked her to marry him, but she turned him down. Now he is in Constantinople.
Towards the end of the drama, when we see Hasan and Giustiniani in a deadly duel, this is not merely one soldier against another, not merely a Muslim against a Christian. We have two men who are in love with the same women. However, this is all pure fiction.
** In the drama, the knight from Genoa is killed by Hasan. In the real world, the deadly duel never happened. Giustiniani was seriously wounded on the last day of the siege, but his men managed to get him out of the city. He died from his wounds a few days later.
His men transported his body to the island of Chios where he was buried. None of this is shown or mentioned in the drama.
** The city of Constantinople that appears in the drama is in a fine state. In the real world, the city of 1453 was a mere shadow of its former self. It had been sacked by the crusaders in 1204 and the destruction had left a permanent mark.
Perhaps the director chose to present the city in a fine state, because he feels there is more honour if you defeat a strong enemy.
The defenders of Constantinople were heavily outnumbered. The Byzantine emperor had only around 7,000 men, while the sultan had an army of 80,000 men, perhaps even 100,000 men.
The siege meant that inhabitants in the city were living on limited supplies, while Mehmet’s army had easy access to food and water. None of this is in the drama.
** In spite of being heavily outnumbered, the defenders of Constantinople did a surprisingly good job.
The Ottoman soldiers could attack the city, but they could not defeat it. The siege began on 6 April. After more than one month the Ottoman army was not much closer to its goal than it had been in the beginning of April.
In the drama, we see some glimpses of the dark mood that dominates on day 40 of the siege, this is in the middle of May: frustration is growing in the Ottoman army.
Even the sultan is not so sure of himself anymore. At this point a former teacher Akshem Seddin (played by Raif Hikmet Cam) pays him a visit.
He tells the sultan a story about a Muslim warrior who fought against Constantinople many years ago. The story inspires the sultan. He realises he cannot give up. He has to do something drastic to break the impasse.
The next scene shows what he does:
Some of his ships are transported overland behind Galata and into the Golden Horn.
In this way he circumvents the chain that is used to block access to this body of water. With these ships he can attack the city walls where they are weakest.
The Ottoman army can fight on with renewed energy and inspiration. This is a good story. The only problem is it is not true.
Mehmet did order his men to transport some of his ships overland and into the Golden Horn and it was indeed a great accomplishment, but it did not happen in the middle of May. It happened on 22 April. The director has changed the order of events in order to suit his own purpose.
** In the drama, we see how the Ottoman army finally defeats the defenders of Constantinople on 29 May. They smash the walls and enter the city.
In the real world, it happened in another way. A small party of defenders had ventured outside the wall through a small gate.
When they had to retreat in a hurry, the last man forgot to close and lock the gate. The attackers took advantage of this opportunity.
Entering through the small gate, they opened a larger gate from the inside and let in a large number of troops. This was the key to the victory of 29 May. None of this is in the drama.
** The sultan allowed his army to sack the city for three days. What went on during these days was probably not nice. This is why it is not shown or mentioned in the drama.
Instead, we see Mehmet entering the famous cathedral Hagia Sofia where many civilians – women, children, and old men – have sought refuge.
As he enters all alone, they look at him, with terror in their eyes, because they think he will order his soldiers to kill them all. But their fear is unfounded.
The sultan smiles at them and tells them not to worry. They are free; they may practice their religion. To show his mercy Mehmet even caresses the hair of a small child.
In this way the bloody and devastating battle that has been raging for almost two months is transformed into a moment of peace and harmony.
This final scene is hardly realistic.
It is a final case of artistic licence.
Conclusion
This historical drama is based on a true story. It is an interesting and important chapter of European history. But as you can see, the drama is not true to the story on which it is based. The cinematography is not good enough, and historical accuracy has been sacrificed with no good reason.
The director has used his artistic licence to show us what could have happened – or perhaps what he thinks should have happened – but not what actually happened, as far as we know.
Fetih 1453 has a dramatic story including a romantic twist and some spectacular images. This may be enough to create a good movie, if we are dealing with fiction, for instance a movie about James Bond.
If, on the other hand, you wish to create a good movie about a historical conflict, a historical drama, you need to stick to the historical facts as much as possible. Unfortunately, this was not done here.
The rulers of the Ottoman Empire are presented as heroes, while the rulers of the Byzantine Empire are presented as villains. In both cases we have a gross violation of historical truth.
The sultan is a super hero: not only a great warrior and a talented hunter, he is also a loving husband who writes poetry to his wife and a loving father who gives his son a hug before he leaves for the battlefield where he wins the war.
He is so good it is hard to believe. And this is a general problem with this drama:
It is hard to believe what we see. When I compare the drama with the real historical facts, there are too many disappointments.
This drama is fundamentally flawed. This is why it deserves a rating of two stars (40 percent).
PS # 1. For the history of the Byzantine Empire, see the trilogy by John Julius Norwich:
The Early Centuries
(1990)
The Apogee
(1993)
Decline and Fall
(1996)
PS # 2. For the history of the Ottoman Empire, see the following item:
Osman’s Dream
by Caroline Finkel
(2005) (2006)
PS # 3. For details about the conflict of 1453, see the following item:
Constantinople: The Final Siege
by Roger Crowley
(2005) (2013)
PS # 4. For details about the harem of the Ottoman Empire, see the following item:
The Imperial Harem
by Leslie Peirce
(1993)
*****
The Ottoman Sultan
Mehmet II
enters Constantinople
after a victorious siege
This is a painting painted by
the Italian painter Fausto Zonaro
(1854-1929)
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment