THE TRANSFORMATION OF CINEMA HALLS IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC

SPHERE AND SOCIAL MEMORY: THE CASE OF EMEK CINEMA

IRMAK TELATAR

JANUARY, 2020

THE TRANSFORMATION OF CINEMA HALLS IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC

SPHERE AND SOCIAL MEMORY: THE CASE OF EMEK CINEMA

BY

IRMAK TELATAR

DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

IN

RADIO, TV AND CINEMA

YEDİTEPE UNIVERSITY, JANUARY, 2020

i

APPROVAL

This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in

sco

ii

PLAGIARISM

iii

ABSTRACT

Cinema is a mass communication tool that has come from the past, develops depending

on technology and is accepted as the seventh art branch. Cinema contains social dynamics both

with its production style and viewing practices. Movies are produced and watched collectively

in cinema halls.

With neoliberal policies and urban transformation projects, cinema halls are closed and

become part of shopping centers. The history and identity of the cities are destroyed by the

demolished buildings and the buildings built in place of these. In reconstructed urban spaces,

social encounters are minimized with smaller theaters and large areas where public debates are

possible are excluded. The fact that the cities have lost their uniqueness, turned into a uniform

entities and lost their historical identity also affects the social memory extending from the past

to the present. With the demolished spaces, the potential of forming a public sphere in cities is

eliminated and the social memory is lost.

In this study, the relationship between cinema and the city will be examined and the

demolitions that took place under the guise of the transformation of cinema halls in Beyoğlu

will be historically examined and the effect of urban transformation on public sphere and social

memory will be discussed with the example of Emek Cinema.

Keywords: Urban transformation, Social Memory, Public Sphere, Cinema Halls, Emek Cinema

iv

ÖZET

Sinema geçmişten günümüze gelen, teknolojiye bağlı olarak gelişen, yedinci sanat dalı

olarak kabul edilen bir kitle iletişim aracıdır. Sinema, hem üretim biçimi hem de izleme

pratikleri ile toplumsal dinamikleri içerisinde barındırmaktadır. Film, kolektif bir biçimde

üretilir, sinema salonlarında kolektif bir biçimde izlenir.

Neoliberal politikalar ve kentsel dönüşüm projeleriyle sinema salonları kapanmakta,

sinema salonları alışveriş merkezlerinin birer parçasına dönüştürülmektedir. Kentlerin tarihi ve

kimliği, yıkılan yapılar ve yıkılan yapılar ve bu yapılar yerine yapılan binalarla yok

edilmektedir. Yeniden inşa edilen kentsel mekânlarda ise toplumsal karşılaşmalar küçülen

salonlarla minimalize edilmekte, kamusal tartışmaların mümkün olduğu geniş alanlara yer

verilmemektedir. Kentlerin özgünlüğünü kaybetmiş, aynılaşmış bir forma dönüşmesi ve tarihi

kimliğini yitirmesi, geçmişten günümüze değin uzanan toplumsal belleği de etkilemektedir.

Yıkılan mekânlar ile kentlerde hem kamusal alan oluşabilme potansiyeli yok edilmekte, hem

de toplumsal bellek yitirilmektedir.

Bu çalışmada sinema ve kent ilişkisi irdelecektir. Beyoğlu’ndaki sinema salonlarının

dönüşümü ve kentsel dönüşüm kisvesi altında gerçekleşen salonların yıkımı, tarihsel olarak

incelenecek ve Emek Sineması örneğiyle, kentsel dönüşümün kamusal alana ve toplumsal

belleğe etkisi üzerinde durulacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Kentsel dönüşüm, Toplumsal Bellek, Kamusal Alan, Sinema Salonları,

Emek Sineması

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study would never happen from the determination of the topic of the thesis to the

development and conclusion stage, without my thesis advisor, Lalehan Öcal who supported me

and did not spare her smiling face in every stage of the study, made me find my way back even

at times when I was lost. I sincerely thank my Advisor Lalehan Öcal, who left a deep mark with

what she taught, which will accompany me throughout my lifetime, whose academic stance,

his originality, the way of seeing and interpreting life, and the poetic language she established

while interpreting life I admire. I would like to thank Prof. Ayla Kanbur, who has shed light on

me academically with her teachings and suggestions on my thesis and contributed to the study.

I would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Kaan Taşbaşı, who I met with for the first time through his

lectures on urban studies.

I would like to extend my thanks to Master Architect Mücella Yapıcı, who has devoted

her life to protecting nature and the city, both for her non-stop urban struggle for society and

for her contributions to my study.

I would like to thank Senem Aytaç, whom I met on the occasion of my consultancy to

Lalehan Öcal, who allowed me to communicate with the people I would interview, and the

people I met through the study for conveying their experiences

I would like to offer my eternal love and thanks to my father, Şahin, who says “Enjoy

life and always learn”; to my mother, Ayşe, who does not lose her positivity and joy of life no

matter what and always gives energy to me; to my sister Deniz, my best friend in life; to my

nephew Poyraz, who has a curiosity and love for life, even though he has just started her

education life; and to my dear friend Kaptan.

Although I can not come together frequently, I would like to thank all my friends, with

whom I feel that distances are unimpeded and whom I know and feel always with me.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL ............................................................................................................................... i

PLAGIARISM .......................................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iii

ÖZET ........................................................................................................................................ iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ ix

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

2. CINEMA, CITY AND PUBLIC SPHERE ........................................................................ 5

2.1 City ................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 The Birth and Development of Cinema in the City ........................................................ 10

2.3 Efforts to Capture Movement and the Invention of the Cinematograph ........................ 10

2.4 Film Screenings and First Film Theaters in the Early Years of Cinema ........................ 13

2.5 First Public Film Screening in Turkey ........................................................................... 16

2.6 The Development and Transformation of Film Theaters in the City ............................. 16

2.7 Public Sphere in Cinema Halls That are Urban Spaces.................................................. 18

2.7.1 Habermas and Bourgeois Public Sphere .................................................................. 18

2.7.2 Proletarian (Counter) Public Sphere and Cinema .................................................... 21

2.8. Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 30

3. SOCIAL SPACE, SOCIAL MEMORY AND CINEMA HALLS ................................. 32

3.1 Social Production of Social Space .................................................................................. 32

3.2 Memory .......................................................................................................................... 39

3.2.1 Various Approaches to Social Memory ................................................................... 40

3.3 The Relationship between Cinema Halls and Social Memory ....................................... 56

3.4 Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 59

vii

4. URBAN TRANSFORMATION AND TRANSFORMING PLACES OF MEMORY IN

İSTANBUL: CINEMA HALLS WITH DOORS OPENING TO THE STREET ............ 61

4.1 Urban Transformation .................................................................................................... 61

4.1.2 Some Laws Relating to Urban Transformation in Turkey ....................................... 64

4.2. Transformation of the City, Use of Space and Cinema ................................................. 67

4.2.1 Cinema from Single Theaters to Multiplex ............................................................. 70

4.3 Transformation of Cinema Halls in İstanbul .................................................................. 73

4.3.1 Transformation Processes of Beyoğlu Cinemas ...................................................... 74

4.3.2 The First Estables Cinema Hall of Beyoğlu: Pathe Cinema .................................... 78

4.3.3 Elhamra Cinema (1923-1999) .................................................................................. 79

4.3.4 Lale Cinema (1939-2005) ........................................................................................ 80

4.3.5 First Building as a Cinema Hall in İstanbul: Majik Cinema and its Demolition

Process (1914-2007) ......................................................................................................... 81

4.3.6 A Sad Farewell to the Alkazar Cinema (1925-2010) ............................................... 84

4.3.7 Sinepop Cinema (1943-2010) .................................................................................. 86

4.3.8 Yeni Rüya Cinema (1930 - 6 May 2010) ................................................................. 87

4.3.9 Saray Cinema, which turned into Demirören Shopping Center (1933-2004) ......... 89

4.3.10 Another Cinema, the Area of which Demirören Shopping Center Rises: Lüks

Cinema .............................................................................................................................. 91

4.3.11 Yeni Melek Cinema ............................................................................................... 91

4.3.12 Shopping Center, Hotel and Residence Instead of Şan and Pangaltı İnci Cinema 92

4.4 Signs of Life ................................................................................................................... 94

4.4.1 Springing to Life Once Again: Kadıköy Cinema .................................................... 95

4.4.2 Resisting Against Urban Transformation: Beyoğlu Cinema ................................... 97

4.5. Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 102

5. EMEK AND RESISTANCE ........................................................................................... 104

5.1 Emek Cinema ............................................................................................................... 104

5.2 Urban Transformation and Emek Cinema .................................................................... 105

viii

5.3 The Fight to Protect Emek Cinema in the Context of Social Memory and Public Sphere

............................................................................................................................................ 105

5.3.1 The Process Developing Towards the Emek Stage on the Upper Floor of the Grand

Pera Shopping Center, From the Historical Emek Cinema with Doors Opening to the

Street with the Claim of “Moving” ................................................................................. 108

5.4 Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 116

6. CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION ........................................................................... 117

REFERENCE LIST ............................................................................................................. 120

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1- David Harvey's spatial practices scheme

Table 2- The Report on the Number of Shopping centers in Turkey measured by JLL in 2018

Table 3- Places that Screened Films in Beyoğlu in Chronological Order

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Kinetoscope

Figure 2. Cinematographe Lumiere Brothers Poster.

Figure 3. Diagram of the Social Realms by Habermas (2017: 97).

Figure 4. Beyoğlu’s First Cinema: Pathe Cinema

Figure 5. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk Watching a Film at the Elhamra Cinema

Figure 6. Lale Cinema with the Movie Poster Kanlı Para

Figure 7. Majik Cinema

Figure 8. Majik Cinema after being left idle

Figure 9. Construction of the hotel planned to be built in place of Majik Cinema.

Figure 10. Picture of the project to be built in place of Majik Cinema.

Figure 11. Entrance of the Alkazar Cinema

Figure 12. Sinepop Cinema

Figure 13. Yeni Rüya Cinema with its final screening movie Min Dit

Figure 14. Comparison of the facades of Cercle d’Orient and Deveaux Apartment

Figure 15. Kadıköy Cinema

Figure 16. “Get Out of the Shopping Center and Protect Your Cinema” Poster Made for

Beyoğlu Cinema

Figure 17. Beyoğlu Cinema’s renovated foyer area

x

Figure 18. Beyoğlu Cinema Loyalty Card

Figure 19. Emek Cinema Reserveal Festivals

Figure 20. Protests to protect Emek Cinema

1

INTRODUCTION

From past to present, cinema halls have been one of the social and cultural places where

people living in the city spend their spare time. As a social and cultural space, cinema was

mobile (in its early days) until it turned into a place where the citizens spend time and it looked

for a venue like cafes and pubs. After the cinema halls were used for the viewing experience,

going to the cinema in their spare time was one of the important urban activities preferred by

the citizens.

Cinema is social with its production and viewing practices. This sociality also makes it

worth to question the potential of cinema to create public sphere. The fact that cinema is a tool

that relates to the city and the society requires reading the cinema in the context of publicity. It

is becoming increasingly difficult to create a public sphere ground for both the city and the

cinema because spaces are transforming rapidly due to the neoliberal system, and the spaces

that transform with the cities are not built in a way that can be brought together within the

framework of publicity, so that there is no ground for discussing different opinions on issues of

public interest.

This rapid transformation of cities also transforms social memory. The demolition of

cinema halls, which connect the generations and are cultural memory carriers as well as their

sociality, destroys the places that will awaken the memories of the people connected with that

space. As a result of the conceptual readings after literature review related to memory; it was

realized that the act of recalling is directly related to space, and if the space that allows recall

does not exist, the experiences and memories realized there are doomed to be forgotten.

One of the social and cultural urban spaces that transform with the city is cinema halls.

With neoliberal urban policies, cinema halls become part of shopping centers. Fitting the

cinema into a shopping center excludes the cultural and artistic dimension of the cinema and

reduces it to only a consumption object. Therefore, the diversification of the social experiences

that took place with the closed/demolished cinema halls became impossible, and the social

memory of space and experience is condemned to be forgotten and lost as it is being forgotten.

In this study, together with urban transformation projects, how neoliberal policies

transform cinema halls and the effects of urban transformation on public sphere and social

memory are examined. In the study, the transformation of cinema halls closed in Beyoğlu from

past to the present has been discussed and how the areas that will make public discussions have

2

been destroyed has been read through Emek Cinema. This study, which focuses on the cinema

of the cinema halls from the history to the present, will contribute to the literature especially in

the spatial and urban context in the field of cinema history, cultural studies and film studies.

One of the important aspects of the contribution of the study to the literature is to record the

Emek Cinema, the demolition of space and the struggle against demolition within the film

studies. The aims of this study include preventing the erasure of the Emek Cinema from being

memorized with its theater, which brought fame to the cinema experience and providing

inspiration and resources for the studies to be done on the demolition of the cinema halls with

doors opening to the street and the monopolized distribution network.

In this study, a literature review was conducted on the concepts of social memory and

public sphere. The transformation of cinema halls in Beyoğlu was examined historically.

In-depth interviews were made with various people, including architects, film writers

and academics, who had a social memory in Emek Cinema and participated in the Emek

resistance. Interviews are semi-structured interviews. The interviewees were selected by

purposeful sampling method. Interviewees include Master Architect Mücella Yapıcı, architect

Cansu Yapıcı, film writer Senem Aytaç, Enis Köstepen, Övgü Gökçe (phone call), film writer

and academician Prof. Dr. Ayla Kanbur and Assoc. Dr. Melis Behlil and Festival audience and

psychologist Ayşe Kayhan. The reason for meeting with people from different professions

although they have experience in the cinema of cinema is to offer a viewpoint to the demolition

of Emek Cinema from different perspectives.

The study was started with the hypothesis that “The traces of the social memory and

public sphere, which are likely to be produced in cultural spaces with urban transformation

policies, are erased”.

The study aimed to answer the following questions:

As a city, what kind of change and transformation of cinema halls İstanbul has seen in

an economic, political and historical context?

Do the cinema halls demolished in this historical scene show similarities in terms of the

reasons and processes?

What are the effects of the demolition of cinema halls outside of shopping centers, which

are social/cultural spaces, in social memory and public sphere?

What is the importance of Emek Cinema in cultural history?

3

What kind of works are being done to protect the existence of cinema halls that try to

survive like Beyoğlu Cinema after the Emek Cinema?

Only cinema halls are examined from the transformed cultural venues. The cinema halls

examined are limited to the İstanbul and in particular Beyoğlu district of Istanbul. The

transformation of cinema halls was evaluated with the transformation process of the city. In this

study, the cinema industry has been viewed from a general perspective, and the movie

distribution channels and monopolization processes of the cinema industry that have an active

role in the transformation of cinema halls related to gentrification projects have not been

examined. By increasing the studies on transformation process of the film industry in Turkey,

the deficiency in cinema literature can be compensated.

In the first part of the study, the relationship of the cinema with the city from the first

screening of the cinema, its transformation with the city and the potential of creating a public

sphere with its social building blocks are emphasized. In the first chapter, the concept of

Habermas' bourgeois public sphere is mentioned and then Negt & Kluge's view of public

sphere, which developed the concept of proletarian/opposing public sphere through the

relations of labor and production, against the exclusion of the bourgeois public sphere.

The reason for the study to develop on the basis of Negt&Kluge's approach to the public

sphere is that they develop a public sphere perspective that opposes bourgeois publicity and

examines social production processes. Miriam Hansen, fed by Negt & Kluge's public sphere

approach, questioned the potential of cinema to be the opposite public sphere. In the study,

Miriam Hansen's Babel&Babylon (1991), which emphasizes the potential of cinema to create

an opposed public sphere, because nickelodeons in the United States, in the early silent period

of cinema, people from different backgrounds, including workers and immigrants, spend their

free time, was examined.

In the second section of the study, “social memory and space relationship”, another

conceptual part of the thesis, was examined through cinema halls.

Henri Lefebvre argued that "social space is a social product," therefore space is created

by social relations. According to Lefebvre, the state and the institutions that make up it arrange

the space according to ideology and their own needs, so the space is political (Lefebvre, 2014:

110-111). The social space, which the government has always tried to control, also causes the

formation of social memory.

4

Halbwachs, who theorized the concept of social memory for the first time, said the

memory related to the act of remembering, “performs the act of recall by placing it in a social

framework in which it operates and interprets a memory through the filter of the social

framework in which it lives” (1992: 38). According to Halbwachs, memory/recalling cannot be

considered independent from society/sociality. In this study, memory is handled with its social

dimensions. The works of names such as Pierre Nora, Paul Connerton, Andreas Huyssen, Jann

Assman related to social memory have been associated with cinema halls, which are social

spaces.

In the third section of the study, in the framework of public sphere and collective

memory conceptualism, the result of neo-liberal urban policies in Turkey which is developing

on the effect on the cinema of urban transformation was focused and the door of urban

transformation opened onto the street, the effect of urban transformation on cinema halls with

doors opening to the street and are left outside the shopping center are examined. The

transformation of cinema halls in Beyoğlu has been examined historically.

In the fourth section of the study, the fact that urban transformation is a destructive form

of intervention against the city was examined with the example of Historical Emek Cinema,

which is one of the most concrete examples of cultural space. Although Emek Cinema is within

the historical conservation area, it was demolished by a number of urban transformation laws

without complying with the law. The resistance that took place to prevent the demolition of

Emek Cinema was handled with the concepts of "public sphere" and "social memory".

In the conclusion part, a general reading of all the sections examined during the study

was made. During the study, it was found that the social spaces that were intended to be

demolished were left idle for a long time in order to be demolished under the guise of urban

transformation. In the conclusion part, both this finding was stated and it was emphasized again

that the Emek resistance was a city struggle formed around the concepts of publicity and social

memory. It was stated that the Emek resistance went down in history as a struggle to protect

the city, an urban space, a social and urban memory with the motto “Emek is ours, İstanbul is

ours”.

5

2. CINEMA, CITY AND PUBLIC SPHERE

Cinema is a mass communication tool that is intertwined with the city and which affects

the city and is affected by the city. Cinema contains social dynamics with both its production

type and its viewing practices. Film is produced collectively, and is watched collectively in film

theaters. Therefore, cinema is not only a means of mass communication limited to film theaters;

it is a phenomenon that overflows the city, streets and squares.

Cities that exist with their cultural venues cannot be thought separately from the film

theaters. In this context, film theaters are one of the artistic spaces that form the identity of a

city and with their characteristics, they have the potential to be the public sphere that contains

the features of social debate.

There is a parallel time-wise between the birth of cinema and the birth of modern cities.

In addition, as cities transform, film theaters transform as well. After the transition from single

film theaters to multiplex film theaters, the film theaters have become a part of the shopping

centers. In this part of the study, first of all, I studied the subjects of what the city is and how it

affects the people living in it, then discussed the interaction between cinema and the city was

emphasized and then discussed the cinema in the context of public sphere.

2.1 City

A city is composed of different kinds of men;

similar people cannot bring a city into existence.1

The city is a phenomenon that differs in every region of the world in terms of its

demographic, political and economic characteristics. Although cities do not have equal

opportunities based on different geographies, we can make a definition that includes cities in

unequal geographies, although there is always the colonizing and the colonized on the basis of

both the world and the countries.

Urban scientist, researcher-writer Ruşen Keleş, defined the city in Kent Bilim Terimleri

Sözlüğü (Urban Science Terms Dictionary) as “the settlement, which is in a continuous social

1 Aristotle.

6

development and where the needs of the society such as settlement, housing, development,

work, recreation and recreation are met, few people are engaged in agricultural activities, and

are densely populated compared to the villages” (Keleş: 1998: 75).

In his book Kentleşme Politikası (Urbanization Policy), Ruşen Keleş explained the

reasons of urbanization by categorizing them in economic, technological, political and socio-

psychological aspects. The economic reasons of urbanization are as follows: The need for labor

decreased with the increase in mechanization in agriculture. The income from agriculture is not

enough to keep the villagers in the village. Economic production factors are cheaper and easier

in cities and people living in the city can benefit from goods and services that are difficult to

find in villages (2016: 42-43). The technological reasons of urbanization are the directing of

production process by the changes in the industrial revolution, the use of electric power in the

industry in parallel to the production of the steam engine in the late 17th century and the

advances in the development of communication and computer technologies in the second half

of the 20th century. All these developments have deeply affected urbanization. Political causes

include wars and political disagreements. During the Second World War, there were migrations

from villages to cities to meet the needs of the war economy. Socio-psychological reasons may

include the differences between the village and urban lifestyles. Cities have more social and

cultural facilities and services than villages, so migrating to the city has become more appealing

for people (2016: 45-46).

There are many approaches and theorists related to the city. In this study, I will primarily

study the city with the urban city approaches of classical urban theorists, namely Karl Marx,

Friedrich Engels, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. Then, I will discuss the approaches of

David Harvey, who explored the city fed by Marxism through the process of capital

accumulation, to the city will.

In most of the definitions related to the city, I emphasized the distinction between it and

countryside. This distinction is very important when defining the city, as both production and

life forms are different in urban and countryside.

In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels explain the distinction between the city and

the countryside through the division of labor.

“The division of labor within a nation first separates industrial and commercial labor

from agricultural labor; then the distinction between the city and the countryside comes

and the interests of these two conflicts. Further development of the division of labor

7

separates commercial labor from industrial labor. At the same time, because of the

division of labor within these various fields, new task divisions emerge among

individuals working together in specific lines of business. The position of these groups

of people against each other is determined by the mode of organization (patriarchy,

slavery, caste, classes) in agriculture, industry and trade. The same conditions (in the

case of a more advanced economic relationship) also occur in the relations between the

different nations themselves” (Marx& Engels, 2013: 31).

Marx and Engels, who considered the distinction between the city and the countryside

as the first major division of labor, say that this division gave birth to different forms of

property; the various developmental stages in the division of labor represent different forms of

property. The current status of the division of labor also determines the relations of individuals

with each other in terms of the substance, equipment and product of labor. According to Marx

and Engels, who list the forms of ownership, the first form of ownership is tribal ownership;

the second form of ownership is the ancient commune and state property; and the third form of

ownership is feudal ownership or group ownership. (Marx& Engels: 2013: 31, 32) Based on

Marx and Engels’ explanations, we can conclude that the relations of production are one of the

main factors affecting the urbanization process.

Weber also addresses the city as a place of social interaction beyond its economic

dimension. Max Weber also sees the city as an area where social interaction and social activities

are carried out. According to Max Weber's approach to the city, the overpopulation is not

enough to make sense of the city. According to Weber, cities are places where social activities

are carried out and social institutions are located. According to Weber, who proposes urban

community theory, cities are places where social activities and social institutions take place.

According to Weber, the “urban community” only emerged in Europe, and a community must

have the following characteristics to become a fully urban community (Weber: 2010: 72).

Emile Durkheim's approach to the city is based on the concepts of “division of labor”

and “solidarity.” According to Durkheim, in order to increase the division of labor in society,

it is necessary to increase the population density and the interaction between among society.

The concentration of the population in a certain place and the increase of the division of labor

led to urbanization. (quoted by Keleş, 2016: 133).

In his book Social Justice and the City, Marxist Social Scientist David Harvey notes the

city as a complex place and addresses the inadequacy of the concepts carried out in the city like

this:

8

“The city is undoubtedly a complex thing. Part of the challenges we face in dealing with

it depends on its unique complexity. But our problems can also be attributed to our

failure to correctly conceptualize the situation. If our concepts are inadequate or

inconsistent, we cannot expect to identify problems and create appropriate solution

policies. Undoubtedly, the city cannot be conceptualized with the present structure of

the disciplines. However, let alone conceptualizing, there is not even a sign about the

city to create an interdisciplinary framework that will allow thinking. Sociologists,

economists, geographers, architects, urban planners and the like live in their own

conceptual worlds and draw their own routes. Each discipline used the city as a

laboratory to experiment with its theories and propositions, yet none of them put forth

theories or propositions about the city itself. This is the first problem that we have to

overcome if we want to understand the complexity we call the city (Harvey, 2016: 27).

Harvey feeds on Marxism while explaining urbanization. According to Harvey, cities

are the result of a geographical concentration of social waste1 production. The style of

urbanization and economic integration is related to waste production. In this context,

urbanization requires the creation of a widespread spatial economy that facilitates the

geographical concentration of the social waste (Harvey, 2016: 198- 216). In this context, cities

are associated with capital.

Richard Sennett describes the city in the simplest sense as “the form of a human

settlement in which the strangers come together” (Sennett, 2002: 62). According to Richard

Sennett, the most important problem in modern cities is that we suffer from the distinction

between “internal” and “external”. This distinction is the distinction between the subjective

experience and the worldly life, between the self and the city. In the modern city, spaces filled

with people like marketplaces stage consumption only. The city is reduced only to a

consumption-based life stage. In the city, everyone is stranger to each other and people are

afraid of opening up to each other (Sennet, 1999: 14-15). Again, Sennett ends the introduction

chapter of his book, Flesh and Stone, titled Body and the City with these sentences:

“The city brings together different people, intensifies the complexity of social life, and

presents people as strangers to each other. All aspects of urban experience - diversity,

complexity, strangeness- give the possibility to resist domination” (Sennett, 2008: 20).

After studying the various approaches to the city, we can conclude: Cities are places

where the population is higher than the countryside, the work and entertainment centers are

concentrated, the transportation networks are developed, the branches of the business and the

9

division of labor is much more than the countryside. In the city, people walking in the streets

are strangers to each other, and the other for each other. Therefore, in modern cities there is

turmoil and fear. The level of unequal income in cities is significant.

David Harvey, in his book Spaces of Hope, studies the unequal geographies, separations

in society and the causes of exclusion in the context of globalization and capitalism. He notes

the long-time existence of the concept of “globalization” in capitalism, the creation of crises by

capitalism and its pretending to solve them from time to time with these sentences:

“Capitalism continually reconstructs geography suitable for its own image. In order to

facilitate the accumulation of capital at a certain stage in its history, it produces specific

geographical profiles, spaces produced for transportation and communication, and

infrastructural and spatial organizations. Then it brings them down, rearranges them to

lead to accumulation at a later stage. If the word ‘globalization’ tells us something about

the geography of our recent history, it simply describes a new phase of this underlying

capitalist space production process.” (Harvey, 2015: 15).

Cities exist with places making up the cities. Cultural places such as streets,

neighborhoods, residential areas, hospitals, schools, restaurants, theaters, film theaters... all

these are the places that make up the cities.

One of the most important cultural places of the cities is undoubtedly the film theaters.

Cinema, as an entertainment and leisure activity, was born in the 20th century in the city as a

result of the innovations brought by the industrial revolution. Cinema has had the power to

bring people from different sectors together since its birth. In the beginning, the traveling film

screenings left their place to the established theaters. The reason why cinema was born in the

city is probably the inner dynamics of the city that we have already explained. Cultural economy

has a tremendous place in the economy of cities, possibly, the potential of cinema as a cultural

industry was predicted. In addition, the people living in the city needed a leisure time to spend

time and have fun outside of the workplace in order to be able to work more efficiently. Film

theaters have been a place where people who have living in the city since their birth spend their

time.

Cinema is a form of cultural production that was born in the city at the development

stage of the industrial revolution; therefore it should be evaluated together with the phenomenon

of urbanization and industrialization. In addition, they should be evaluated together as the

cinema has used the city as a theme and a place since its birth (Morva: 2006).

10

2.2 The Birth and Development of Cinema in the City

Cinema is a form of cultural production and mass media that was born in the city at the

development stage of the industrial revolution towards the end of the 19th century. Cinema,

which was discovered as a result of a series of scientific inventions, became a leisure time

activity in a short time where people living in the city were able to go in their time outside the

work, have fun, get away from the wearisomeness of the city and come together with people

from different walks (Morva: 2006).

Cinema is both a scientific and technological innovation and a socio-cultural

phenomenon. The reason why cinema is a socio-cultural phenomenon can be seen as both the

mode of social production and the themes it deals with and the practices of watching.

The invention of the cinema as a place, where people from different groups came

together and watched films happened in a collective manner such as the way it is watched.

Cinema is a more collective invention than most of the other technological innovations that

shape modern electrical and electronic communication systems. For example, the invention of

devices such as telephones, telegrams or radios may be attributed to a single person, but the

emergence of cinema cannot be attributed to a single person; cinema is based on a series of

small discoveries, and each invention has a different creator until modern cinematograph is

found. (Monaco, 2014: 23).

The invention of the cinematograph device is considered the beginning of modern

cinema. There is a common effort in the inventions until the invention of the cinematograph

device. These efforts are the efforts to capture movement and record movement.

2.3 Efforts to Capture Movement and the Invention of the Cinematograph

In his book Cinema: The History of Art of Practice, which was first published in 1985,

Nijat Özön, a cinema historian and theorist, emphasizes the fact that, although it might have

been named differently throughout the history according to countries, cinematograph, as a

common point, has merged in the concept of “moving pictures”.

It is no coincidence that the names of the devices which are today's cinema’s ancestors,

were always derived from the Greek words which bear the notions of “motion”,

“movement”, “life”, “vitality”, because the cinema expressed a longing that people have

been dreaming for centuries but could not pursue and realize. Detecting and transferring

motion (Özön, 1985: 16).

11

The effort to record and transfer the movement may be a need for humanity beyond

being a longing for humanity. People have needed to communicate with each other throughout

history and invented the tools and equipment to provide this. In the Paleolithic age, for example,

people have painted animal figures on their cave walls, depicting various symbols of

superstition. All this may have been the need for survival, curiosity, protection, and the transfer

what they saw to someone else. The cinema was reached as a result of a series of discoveries

from the paleotian era to the present.

“From the paintings on the walls of the Akamira caves in Spain and in Las-caux, France,

in 20,000 B.C., to the pictures on the Kivik monument from the Bronze Age in Sweden;

the shadow plays that are the ancestors of Karagöz which date back to prehistoric 5,000

according to some and 2.000 years according to others; Hittite reliefs from a series of

pictures resembling a contemporary pictorial novel in the Book of the Dead in the period

of pharaohs in 2,000 BC or the vase paintings in ancient Greece, all of these can be

regarded as the ancestor of cinema” (Özön, 1985: 16).

Throughout the history, technological innovations have been the continuation and

development of the previous. Özön sees all these cultural and artistic works as footprints that

enable us to reach today's cinema.

There are important inventors who serve the birth of modern cinematography with their

inventions. Among the most important ones are Thomas Elve Edison, William K.L Dickson

and George Eastman. “Thomas Elve Edison and William K.L Dickson invented the device they

called kinetescope. With the kinetescope device invented in 1888, moving pictures can be

viewed from an eyelet, and ‘film reel’ invented by George Eastman was used in the invention

of the kinetescope” (Abisel, 2007: 14).

12

Figure 1. Kinetoscope

The phenomenon of photography undoubtedly has an important place in the invention

of cinema. The phenomenon of photography played an important role in the development of

cinema. The use of photography for different purposes is one of the stones on the road to

cinematography. Eadweard Muybridge's photographs of running horses and the method he

developed when shooting them are one of the turning points. Muybridge, who was a

photographer, set up a system of twenty-four cameras side-by-side on a racetrack, and by taking

twenty-four shots at very short intervals, found out that the galloping horse’s feet completely

lost contact with the ground for a short time, and captured movement with these photographs.

Many discoveries have been made on the road to cinematography (Abisel, 2007: 14).

All these discoveries are proof that there is no clear answer to the question “Who

invented cinema?” because there are many inventors who served the birth of cinema. On

February 13, 1895, Louis and Auguste Lumière Brothers patented the cinematograph they were

inspired by the kinetoscope, and this was a big step in terms of cinema’s reaching the masses.

13

2.4 Film Screenings and First Film Theaters in the Early Years of Cinema

There is a ten-year difference between the discovery of cinema and the film theater.

There are different opinions about the beginning of the cinema, but it is generally accepted that

the Lumière Brothers’ presenting their films to an audience who paid in December 1895 is the

beginning of cinema. This screening was made in the basement of a coffee shop in Capucines

Avenue. Film historian Jean Pierre Jeancolos notes Grands Boulvards of the First World War

as the center of high society's life in Paris (Jeancolos: 2014: 14).

This “salon indien” was a specially decorated place to rent for family celebrations or

any use. Father Lumiere rented this place. It had 33 gilded wooden armchairs and a layout that

was hardly seen at that time. On the one short side of the rectangular hall, there was an operator

hand-turning a projector and a curtain on the other. This arrangement has always been the

typical model of film theaters, despite all the variations brought to the decorations and comfort.

In the first five years of its existence, the cinema was truly a squatter2, except that it changed

its existing theater design according to its use (Jeancolos: 2014: 14).

Figure 2- Cinematographe Lumiere Brothers Poster.

In the first years of the cinema, the cinema met its audience in various places such as

cafés and pubs. The second film screening, which began with the screenings of the Lumière

Brothers, was held on 30 March in a café-concert in Eldorado. According to the journalist of

the time, “the curtain was placed between people seated at the table and who were drinking.”

In other words, “the café kept its habits and people watched films while drinking” (Jeancolos,

2014: 14). Lumière's third screening center is located in a hall in the basement, in one of the

2Squatter is the word for the use different places such as cafés and pubs for film screenings before the birth of film theaters. The film screenings happened about 10 years before the birth of the film theaters, and during this period the cinema became a squatter.

14

additional buildings of Olympia. In 1896, Paris had 4 Lumière theaters, none of which were

designed for this work. During this period, the theater-based illusionist George Méliès offered

film screenings as a part of the illusion theater. The characteristic of the period is the

continuation of the cinema screenings as squatter, and that the film screenings were shown in

places such as cafés instead of specially selected theaters for cinema. This squatter period would

last until 1905-1906 (Jeancolos, 2014, 14:15)

Even the Lumière Brothers probably didn't think that the cinema would spread so

quickly. Trained by the Lumière Brothers in their factory in Lyon, the directors have spread all

over the world. Films such as the Baby's Breakfast, Child Fight, Boat Leaving the Port, Arrival

of a Train at a Station (1895), all of which were directed by Lumière Brothers and other

directors; one or two-minute documentary footage, are the main films of the period. George

Méliès, who operated the Theater of Jean-Eugène Robert-Houdin, famous for magic plays in

Paris, “wanted to understand the possibilities of the cinematograph and acquire a

cinematograph,” but this request was rejected by the Lumière Brothers with the answer “This

device is a secret; I’m going to run it myself.” (Özön, 1985: 156-157).

With the rapid development of filmmaking, the cinemas, the vast majority of which

were traveling, have been replaced by established ones. “The established cinema, which first

appeared in England in 1900, was later spread to the United States. Starting from 1905,

established cinemas called nickelodeons3 emerged in all the big cities of the United States. The

number of these public cinemas increased from ten in 1905 to ten thousand in 1910 (Özön,

1985: 161).

The emergence of nickelodeons in the United States made it easy for people of all walks

of life to watch a film and to interact with each other socially by paying a low price. In this

context, the emergence of nickelodeons is very important. The emergence and spread of the

Nickelodeons have allowed the cinema to reach large audiences. In the United States, the

masses of immigrants, working class, children, women, etc., had the opportunity to come

together and watch films in these theaters.

In his book Babel & Babylon (1991), Miriam Hansen talks about how nickelodeons

bring people from different backgrounds together. According to Hansen, the nickelodeons are

easily accessible places in the urban-industrial life of the workers who work under heavy

3 Film theaters called Nickelodeons were named after nickels because it cost a nickel to watch a film in these theaters in the early periods of films (1905-1914)

15

conditions and want to escape from the crowds. Nickelodeons' bringing together people from

different classes, having an equal seating arrangement, music and live shows, and offering

interactive participation to the audience show the potential of the nickelodeons to become an

“alternative public sphere” in their first period. The number of nickelodeons increased over

time and entry prices increased. Over time, the film industry has been increasingly tried to be

ennobled, and cinema has been transformed into a mass industry in line with capitalist

standards. Moreover, while doing so, American ideology was imposed on the masses with the

myth of “democratic art” (Hansen, 1991: 61-65).

In her article Sinemanın Kamusal Alanı ve Popüler Kültürle Karşılaşması (The Public

Sphere of Cinema and Its Encounter with Popular Culture), Tül Akbal Süalp says “The

emergence of cinema coincides with the process which necessitated the reorganization of the

relations of imperialism and significant leaps in technology, and the dominant and rapid

formation of urban life that will deeply undermine social relations” (1997: 35). In this study,

Süalp communicates how cinema transformed from an alternative public sphere into a mass

culture in the early period based on the work of Miriam Hansen.

Cinema was considered as a mediator that could melt the differences, disappointments

and hopes of the changes caused by the gathering of masses that are different and complex from

each other in their social life in industrial cities, and form the identities of unity and

togetherness. The public dimension of the perception of cinema emerged where ideology was

written, where the narrative formulated the coding. The culture and language of the masses

writes a universal language, scenario that new and in line with spirit of the era and teaches the

man on the street the way of being a social individual and an identity and community (Süalp,

1997: 36).

The public dimension of cinema, which has the power to bring people from different

sectors together, will be explained in more detail under the topic of public sphere and cinema.

Turkey could not remain indifferent to cinema attracting people from all walks of life turning

into a huge mass culture over the time. The first public screening with the cinematograph device

was made in 1895, and the Turkish territory saw the cinematograph device in 1896 (Esen, 2010:

4). At the time of the Ottoman Empire, the cinema entered the Turkish territory first from the

court and later reached the public (Esen, 2010: 5).

16

2.5 First Public Film Screening in Turkey

The sources on the first public film screening in Turkey varies in information, but most

of the sources say that it was made at the beginning of 1897, in İstanbul, in the Sponeck pubs

in the Galatasaray district by a Polish Jew named Sigmund Weinberger. In his book, Türk

Sinemasının Kilometre Taşları (Milestones of Turkish Cinema) (2010), Şükran Esen presents

different arguments about the person who made the first public screening and the place where

the screening was made.

According to Esen, the fact that the first film show in the history of Turkish Cinema was

made at the Palace is said in Turkish Cinema History books based on a short section in the

memoirs of Ayşe Osmanoğlu, one of the daughters of Abdülhamid II. In Turkish cinema history

books printed before 1995, it was said that the first film screening in Turkey was made at the

beginning of 1897, in İstanbul, in the Sponeck pubs in the Galatasaray district by a Polish Jew

named Sigmund Weinberger. The suggestion made by the cinema writer and critic, Burçak

Evren, that the person who made the first screening in the Sponeck was a person named D.

Hanri, based on the Sabah newspaper dated 9 February 1897 is also plausible. Getting

encouraged from the the magnitude of the interest in the film screening in Sponeck, it is

announced that film screenings start at Fevziye Kıraathanesi due to Ramadan. A new and

different sugestion about the first film screening in Turkey was raised in 1996. Prof. Dr. Rauf

Beyru argues that the first film screening took place in İzmir in 1896 and not in İstanbul, and

shows the news in the Ahenk newspaper published in those years. (Esen, 2010: 5-6)

2.6 The Development and Transformation of Film Theaters in the City

Cinema has taken its place in the established theaters after the traveling period and the

interest in cinema has increased. In the early period, film screenings were made on a more

egalitarian ground such as the nickelodeons in the United States. In time, the cinema has

changed its architecture by focusing more on those with greater financial means. In the cities,

luxury film theaters with exaggerated architectural details began to open. (Morva, 2010)

Since the 1910s, cinema has become an important leisure time activity for people in the

city. “According to the state of use, leisure time and entertainment, which expresses the whole

of moments of fun and resting, are two concepts of close origin (Sorlin: 2004:21). In Europe,

as in America, leisure time was organized according to work (Sorlin, 2004: 22). Pierre Sorlin,

in his essay Cinema in the History of Entertainment, describes how the cinema as a source of

17

entertainment enters society. Sorlin, as a free time activity between 1930-1950, has found an

increase in the number of spectators (sound nice). In addition, Sorlin also notes that after 1910

in the United States, the wealthy who were interested in the screened films in the public theaters

finally watched films by mixed among different classes (Sorlin, 2004:26-27).

Sorlin found that there was an increase in the number of spectators who went to the

theaters to watch films as a form of entertainment between 1930 and 1950. In fact, after 1945-

1950s, the number of audiences, including those in Europe, decreased, because from 1945

onwards the Second World War had a devastating impact all over the world.

The reason for all these developments is the fact that the increase of the destruction of

capitalism with the accumulation of capital which took years to start and exacerbated by the

industrial revolution. In the cities where the globalization and neoliberal policies gradually

increased their influence after the 1950s, both cities and the cultural places that made up the

cities were transformed and one of the cultural venues that share this transformation is the film

theaters. In this context, it may be useful to briefly mention neoliberalism.

According to David Harvey, neoliberalism is, above all, a theory of political-economic

practices. This theory argues that the best way to improve human well-being is to release

individual enterprise skills and freedoms in an institutional framework based on strong private

property rights, free markets and free trade” (2015: 10).

Globalization is depicted positively by some theorists to justify the dominant ideology.

According to Sungur Savran, “globalization is that the international bourgeoisie’s starting a

downward race in terms of gains and rights by making the working classes and the laborers of

different countries rival against each other. ‘Globalization’ is a strategy to expand the reserve

industry army worldwide” (Savran, 2008: 15).

According to Zygmunt Bauman, although globalization is shown as a unifying force, it

is actually a rather divisive process. Globalization has created an unequal freedom of movement

and the use of time and space has differentiated and been differentiated. “Separation and

exclusion are part of globalization processes. Globalization divides while unifying and makes

similar while trying to differentiate.” (Bauman, 1998: 7-10).

The transformations in the city and the places that make up the city affected the public

spheres in the city. It is also possible to consider film theaters as public spheres where the

society interacts with each other.

18

If we are to discuss the distinction between the concepts of public sphere and public

sphere shortly; the concepts of public sphere and public sphere are in fact intertwined with each

other today. The concept of public sphere comes from the German word Öffentlichkeit. The

word Öffen in German means common, public, open. “The concept of public sphere enables us

to examine different realms and phenomena in our lives, together with the time and space

dimension, in terms of social dynamics. We can use the concept of public sphere to emphasize

the spatial dimensions, boundaries, social relations, rules and forms of communication of public

sphere (Özbek, 2004: 38-41). It is possible to call the urban places that can provide public

debate public sphere.

2.7 Public Sphere in Cinema Halls That are Urban Spaces

The city is the place where the social relations are organized and these carried out. For

this reason, people living in the city have more opportunities for social activities through which

they can spend time and interact with society outside of work compared to the countryside. In

this context, cinema has an important place in the life of the city population since its emergence

as a social interaction area and it has been one of the most important social activities for the

city residents since its inception.

The publicity and the spatiality, which allows the society to be in interaction, of the film

theaters makes it possible to consider the film theaters which are open to artistic, cultural and

political sharing as the public sphere. At the beginning of this section, I briefly mentioned the

information from Miriam Hansen's book Babel & Babylon which is about the potential of the

nickelodeons to be a “counter public sphere” in the early silent period of cinema which was

conceptualized by Negt and Kluge. This alternative is in fact an alternative to the “bourgeois

public sphere” of Habermas, who conceptualized “public sphere” in 1962 for the first time.

Therefore, first I will define public sphere by explaining Habermas' concept of the “public

sphere”, and by these definitions and debates, discuss the “proletarian public sphere” set forth

by Negt and Kluge as an alternative, and then establish a connection between cinema and public

sphere through Miriam Hansen’s view of public sphere in cinema.

2.7.1 Habermas and Bourgeois Public Sphere

19

Jürgen Habermas was the first to conceptualize “public sphere", although the origins of

the concept of “public sphere” extended to Ancient Greece. The distinction between public

sphere and private sphere varies historically according to thinkers.

“The word public is derived from the adjective public only in the 18th century by

establishing a similarity between publicitê and publicity, and the public, in particular,

belongs to the ‘bourgeois society’, which has been institutionalized on their laws as a

field of commodity exchange and social labor in the same period. However, the public

and the non-public had been mentioned long before” (Habermas: 2017: 59).

In the simplest sense, with the concept of public sphere, Habermas refers to “an area

within the social life, which is similar to the public opinion, to which all citizens can reach”,

and all citizens can reach this area. Public sphere is “an area where private individuals gather

together, communicate with each other, and conduct rational discussions” (Habermas, 2017:

95).

According to Habermas, rational debates are carried out by the public community, and

this public community consists of elected people. In his book The Structural Transformation of

the Public Sphere (1962), Habermas explains the public community as follows:

“The sociological meaning of the standards of “reasoning” and the forms of “law” that

the public community wants to subject to sovereignty can be revealed only by the

analysis of the public in bourgeois society. This becomes even more evident if we

consider the fact that there are private individuals who have relations with each other in

this public sphere as a public community. In particular, the specific experiences the

conjugal family arising from its subjectivity that is related to the public directs

consciousness of public reasoning (Habermas, 2017: 95).

According to Habermas, the public community-specific reasoning activities are revealed

in places such as “cultural organizations, reading theaters, museums and concerts, which have

become publicly accessible. Habermas, who proposes the concept of literary public, says “The

‘city’ is not only a vital center for bourgeois society; first of all, it defines the first literary

public, which became institutionalized in coffee-houses, theaters and dinner invitations which

are the cultural-political opposites of the ‘court’.” (2017: 96:97) According to Habermas,

coffeehouses in England in the 18th century were places where rational discussions were held.

The fact that philosophical and literary works were produced and transferred within the market

enabled knowledge to be accessible to everyone as a commodity (2017: 106).

20

Figure 3: Diagram of the Social Realms by Habermas (2017: 97).

As shown in the diagram above, Habermas outlined the public and social realms formed

by the bourgeois society in the 18th century as a schema. According to this schema, the public

sphere is limited to the “public authority and the actual ‘public’ is in the private realm.

(Habermas: 2017: 97). Habermas divides the public as word of letters or political realm. When

the issue of public debate targets issues related to state activity, political public can be

mentioned instead of letters public” (2004: 95). “The private sphere encompasses the

‘bourgeois society’, namely the commodity exchange and social labor, and the conjugal family

is also included in this with the domain of privacy. The political public emerges from the world

of letters public and communicates the needs of society to the state through public opinion”

(2017: 97).

According to Habermas, the public community may not be able to close its door, no

matter how exclusionist it might be at the start. This community has always existed in “a

community that is larger than its own, consisting of private individuals, readers, listeners, and

viewers who want to dominate the market, which constitutes the objects of discussion, on the

basis of ownership and collection” (2017: 107).

Habermas explains that the first public community actually included a very small part.

According to Habermas, the reason for the first public community to be smaller is that “the

literacy rate in the 18th century England was low and that the more than half of the British

population lived in conditions below the minimum subsistence level” (2017: 108). The 17th

century court aristocracy does not actually carry a reading community. It emerges in the first

21

decades of the 18th century with the artist protectors were replaced by the publishers who were

the employer of the author and the distribution of the works in the market (2018: 109). Over

time a public community in the field of letters is formed. Then, as in letters, theater also creates

a spectator in the narrow sense of public community. This community, like in Germany, takes

place with the “public”ization of the court and principality theaters. Beginning from the first

half of the 18th century, public communities are formed in the fields of letters, theater, music

and various arts. “The inner circle of the art community is composed of intellectual amateurs”

(Habermas, 2017: 112). In time, artistic criticism begins to institutionalize and art criticism

becomes a profession. Journals emerge as the tools of critique of institutionalized art and

culture. These journals are typical products of the 18th century, and they are reproduced in

coffee houses. After all these developments, the public community is transformed into a

community that thinks and speaks about many fields such as philosophy, literature, art and

science (2017: 114-117).

Habermas' public community and the concept of the public sphere represents the

bourgeois class in England in the 18th century and it does not involve everyone, although it

seems to embrace the entire society. At the same time, the bourgeois public sphere “has to be

allied with the tangible interests of the capitalist mode of production (Özbek, 2004: 136). All

these dilemmas of the bourgeois public sphere led Alexander Kluge and Oscar Negt to work

on the concept of the proletarian public sphere.

2.7.2 Proletarian (Counter) Public Sphere and Cinema

“The public sphere is the site where struggles

are decided by other means than war.”

As the classical bourgeois public sphere Habermas conceptualized covers only a certain

part of the society, and Oscar Negt and Alexander Kluge formed a counter “public sphere”.

Negt-Kluge called this public sphere “proletarian public sphere” and its focus is on the horizon

of social experience. (Negt-Kluge: 2018).

In their book Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and

Proletarian Public Sphere published in 1972, Oscar Negt and Alexander Kluge develop a

proletarian (counter) public sphere design as an experience realm to be an alternative to the

22

bourgeois public sphere and emphasize the dialectical relationship between the bourgeois

public sphere and the proletarian public sphere. Negt-Kluge incorporates all areas of social

production into the concept of counter public sphere that he develops (Özbek, 2004: 21).

The bourgeois public sphere cannot represent the general majority of the population,

even if it does not only address bourgeois interests. It cannot be said that the proletarian public

sphere includes the oppressed majority in society because the Proletarian life lacks the ground

to form a interrelated and coherent unity. The bourgeois public sphere blocks the elements that

links the proletarian life with and make it meaningful (Özbek: 2004: 135-136).

The concept of the proletarian public sphere, based on its inadequacy eliminate the

influence of bureaucratization and commodification of the cancellation of the ownership of

private property of production, draws attention to the importance of creating a spirit of public

ownership and struggle against the ‘colonization’ of habitats in this regard” (Özbek, 2004: 30).

In her book Kamusal Alan (Public Sphere) (2004), in which Meral Özbek extensively

referred to the Public Sphere and which have been included in the articles of many theorists and

academicians, Özbek states that the category of labor with the neoliberal policies especially

after the 1980s was also pushed out of the political, legal and social discourse (2004: 37). Özbek

explains the importance of Negt and Kluge's concept of the counter (proletarian) public sphere

as follows:

“Negt and Kluge's opposing public sphere approach, while the process of

disorganization and re-proletarianization (dispossession and impoverishment) of the

classes working under global economic policies deepens, supports the re-circulating

concepts of ‘production’, ‘labor’ and ‘class struggle’, which were devalued and dropped

from the agenda, not only in the material production process of commodities, but also

in the context of social production processes in all life contexts. The ‘proletarian’ or

‘counter’ public sphere of Negt-Kluge points to the revolutionary potential of of the

linking and strengthening of the experience, skills and forms of relationship of the social

labor force, which capitalism exploited, broke down, excluded or suppressed, devalued,

and put out of circulation, through counter-strategies” (Özbek: 2004: 37).

As Özbek states, Negt-Kluge's concept of counter or proletarian public sphere is very

important because it focuses on ‘production’, ‘labor’ and ‘class struggle’. Negt and Kluge

explain why they need to develop an opposing concept of public sphere in the foreword of

Public Sphere and Experience (1972), and the beginning of this explanation is primarily

23

focused on the contradictions between the events of public importance and the events that are

considered private:

“Federal elections, Olympic ceremonies, actions of a commando unit, a theater

premiere... These are all considered as ‘public events’. Other events of overwhelming

public significance, such as childrearing, factory work, and watching television within

one's own four walls, are considered ‘private’ events. However, the real social

experiences of human beings, produced in everyday life and work, cut across such

divisions. (Negt-Kluge, 2004: 133).

Negt-Kluge, as seen in the quotes above, emphasizes the contradiction of considering

events and activities that are socially important being ‘private’ events and those which do not

actually have an impact on people's lives being ‘public event’. The above quotation from Negt-

Kluge can serve as an example of why Negt-Kluge needs to develop a concept of a counter

public sphere (proletarian public sphere).

Negt-Kluge says that “proletarian publicity has never existed as a dominant form of

publicity” (Negt-Kluge: 2018: 64). According to Negt-Kluge, the possibility of a proletarian

public sphere emerging can only sprout on the cracked ground of the bourgeois publicity.

According to Negt-Kluge, historical breakpoints of the proletarian public sphere are “the signs

of concrete social power clusters that develop in crises, war, capitulation, revolution and

counter-revolution” (2018: 64).

According to Negt and Kluge, the distinction between private and public events in the

bourgeois public sphere was not built correctly. For them, the bourgeois public sphere excludes

two important phenomena: “The whole of the industrial apparatus and socialization in the

family.” The public sphere claims to represent the whole of society, but it “derives its substance

from an intermediate realm that does not specifically express any particular life context.” (Negt-

Kluge, 2004: 136).

The experience corresponding to the broad and social horizon, which is absent in

Habermas' concept of the public sphere, is included in the concept of the counter public sphere

developed by Negt-Kluge. “Potential expressions of the counter public sphere of the working

class have been captured by the bourgeois public sphere, melting under the increasingly

bureaucratized parties and unions since the 19th century. According to Kluge, it is possible to

say that public sphere is one of the means of production taken from the hands of the working

class” (Quoted from Lienmann by Süalp, 2004: 43).

24

Miriam Hansen also says in her Foreword to her book Public Sphere and Experience,

which was first published by Negt and Kluge in 1972, that the public sphere conceptualized by

Negt and Kluge was shaped on the basis of the horizon of social experience. Hans says “How

social experience develops the horizon, through which mechanisms and mediums, serving the

interests of whom are all at the basis of the public sphere of Negt and Kluge.” 19). According

to Negt and Kluge, “publicity has the value of use value when social experience is organized

within it” (Hansen, 1993: 76).

Negt-Kluge refers to the publicity with the horizon of experience. According to Negt-

Kluge, publicity is a general horizon of social experience in which everything that is truly or

seemingly relevant is integrated. (Negt-Kluge, 2018: 74). According to Negt-Kluge, publicity,

“on the one hand, is a matter of a handful of professionals (politicians, publishers, trade union

officials); on the other hand it is something that concerns everyone, that is only realized in the

minds of people, in one dimension of their consciousness” (2018: 74). Publicity is “the only

form of expression that connects the members of the society, who are in ‘special’ connection

with the social production process, by combining the social characteristics of these members”

(2018: 74).

According to Negt-Kluge, there is an interdependent relationship between the private

and the publicity, and something “can only be defined as private as it is public. This thing has

been public and should continue to be public for a few thousand years or for a moment” (2018:

76). And this horizon of experience arises from the interdependent relationship between the

private and the publicity (Negt-Kluge, 2018: 76).

According to Negt-Kluge, no matter what part of the working class, a person's concrete

labor makes “his/her own experience” no matter how different it is from the others. The horizon

of these experiences is the unity of the context of proletarian life” (Negt-Kluge, 2018: 79). The

unity of proletarian life includes “elements which cannot be separated from labor force such as

socialization, the psychological structure of the individual, the school, the performance of

professional knowledge, leisure time activities and mass media.” “The worker internalizes

‘society as a whole’ and the whole context of blindness through this unified context, which

he/she experiences publicly and privately” (2018: 79). According to Negt-Kluge, the experience

of the worker is both organized and not organized. He/she is deprived of consciousness that

would fully realize his experience. Negt-Kluge states that even philosophers cannot produce

social experience at the individual level. (2018: 79).

25

“Social experience in the process of self-production is aware of the limitations of

commodity production and makes the context of life itself the object of production. The

production here is directed to a form of public expression, which is based on the subject

characteristic of the organized social experience, not on the relationship of the

dialectical subject-object, the inadequate opposition of the social whole to the thinking

individual. It is clear that at this point, organization should be understood in a dialectic

sense as the production of the form that the content of the direct experience has, not in

the technical sense.’’

According to Negt-Kluge, the bourgeois publicity has decayed and the masses’ adaption

with a horizon of a public experience is only examining “the ideal history of the public sphere

together with the history of decay” (Negt-Kluge, 2018: 75).

In an interview with him, Alexander Kluge was asked whether the concepts of “public

sphere” emerged as an opponent to Habermas' concept of the public sphere, and they wanted to

learn the differences between Habermas' concept of public sphere and Negt and Kluge's concept

of “public sphere”. Kluge stated that the concept of public sphere did not emerged as and

opponent to Habermas, but as an answer to Habermas’s concept of “public sphere”. Negt and

Kluge's idea of a “public sphere” emerged in the field of production. According to Kluge, “when

a worker works on something, that thing belongs to him/her.” According to Kluge, what needs

to be studied is “the production area that operates even in the most private part of private life”

(Negt-Kluge, 2004: 630).

Miriam Hansen points out that the concept of the public sphere has been addressed in

different contexts and in different disciplines since the 1980s. Hansen explains this new interest

in the public sphere is caused by the fact that far more relevant to contemporary political issues

and social developments compared to the past, and that it is an interdisciplinary relationship.

(Hansen: 2018: 20).

1) Gender and sexuality. Specially, struggles over reproduction, childrearing and the

regulation of forms of sexual expression and intimacy.

2) Race and ethnicity. Specifically, the backlash against civil rights, the increase of ethnic

racial violence, separatism and nationalism, the question of identity politics.

3) Cutting across all the areas. The ineluctably changed and changing relations of

representation and reception, marked, on one level, by the accelerated globalization of the

media of private and electronic consumption and, on another, by national controversies

surrounding federal funding for the arts and the question of multiculturalism in the

humanities. (Hansen: 1993: 20-21).

26

Hansen says “The real issues in all these conflict areas are neither entirely social nor

entirely political, but rather have the dimension of publicity.” (2018: 21). Hansen points out

that the public sphere also has the potential to occur in contradictory constellations, but this

dimension of being public is suppressed by the cultural industry and the main issue is missed.

Hansen discusses the contradictory constellation in society. For example, homophobia prevails

in all areas of society, but “the gay image is highlighted in fashion and lifestyle industries”

(2018: 21). Hansen explains this contradictory situation with Negt-Kluge's approach. “Different

groups can have more opportunities to represent themselves through the electronic media and

the international production and consumption networks of the public sphere, but this structural

variation cannot turn into a new cultural policy for difference” (2018: 22).

Tül Akbal Süalp, like Hansen, in her article Kamusal Alan, Deneyim ve Kluge (Public

Sphere, Experience and Kluge), tells how difficult the access to the horizons of social

experience of Negt-Kluge in the public sphere is nowadays. (Süalp: 2004). Süalp says “In the

1990s, just as how modern capitalism was linked to how industrial cities were connected to

other centers of life such as railways, today, the new electronic social space and relationships

of individuals with electronic technologies are almost re-encoded as information transfer

relations” (Süalp, 2004: 658). According to Sualp, the old social and public spheres are

changing with technology, human relations and information transfer have accelerated greatly

and the world has become a world of images (Süalp, 2004: 658).

Süalp argues that in the counter public sphere conceptualized by Negt-Kluge “marginal

groups, workers, women, children, immigrants, transitional and traveling plurals will be

squeezed by new legal and police measures in this new world which is called global by some

but that is still imperialist.” In addition, according to Süalp “Nevertheless, our ways of living,

the fields corresponding to these forms, and the struggle for the right to time for saving can only

develop with the acquisition and production of knowledge and then through the transfer and

circulation of it through alternative forms of public communication” (Süalp, 2004: 659). In this

context, although the opportunity to create a counter public sphere is not given much, it is

possible to obtain such a ground in various ways and by acquiring knowledge. Süalp draws

attention to the importance of civil society in particular and says that civil society needs to have

a say in the issues and transformations concerning society, and that only in this way that people

can claim their lives. According to Süalp, “in their own way of life, people can make this

intervention by organizing within their own relations, in which they can have the right to

manage their time, not the time given to them” (2004: 660). According to Süalp, the possibility

27

of a public sphere that involves everyone is only by creating new grounds for news, forums,

discussions and trying new forms and methods (2004: 660).

A medium where Kluge tried as a public sphere is television. Miriam Hansen questions

“why, in spite of 30 years of media struggle, Kluge is a partner of a media giant, Bertelsmann,

and why he makes programs for a channel that gives 80% of its broadcasting to entertainment”

(Quoted from Hansen by Süalp, 2004: 662). According to Kluge, they must go to the audience

and not give up on communicating with the it. “Video production and television are fight

grounds for reconstructable experiences, reconstructable film form and alternative public

sphere struggle” (2004: 662).

Süalp says “In the socio-economic-political rearranges affecting the living spaces and

relationships of people after the Second World War, a turning point that shakes the daily life

and affect the cultural and ideological reproduction can be talked about” (Süalp, 2004: 662).

Migrations from countryside to cities and from cities to the larger metropolises, fast-flowing

life, unstoppable mobility all begin to force new relationships and styles in urban life. With the

splashes of the electronic technique, the camera is now on the street, and at the same time, this

camera that is on the street witnesses social debates. (Süalp, 2004: 663).

Süalp draws attention to the different trends and dissenting areas that have been seen all over

the world, especially in the field of cinema, with the means of narration since 1940:

‘’Cinéma vérité and immediately after that, new wave in France; direct cinema and

underground experimental and spontaneous cinemas developing simultaneously to

cinéma vérité in America; neo-realism that began immediately after the war in Italy;

alternative and dissenting documentaries in the UK, the work of these documentarians

on television and then angry young men and free cinema movements developing in

cinema and theater, Young German cinema that emerged in Germany with the

Oberhausen Manifesto, pioneered by Kluge, the cinematheque group in Turkey, which

was the first film-making ear and perhaps the most vibrant era of Turkish cinema and

national filmmakers group in Turkey; in Brazil and India, movements seeking their own

language and forms of expression which participated in anti-colonial criticism of the

period and targeted a third cinema and culture movement... These were all indications

of the vividness of this period spreading all over the world” (Süalp, 2004: 663).

As seen in the quote above, it is possible to establish an alternative form of organization

and public sphere with video technologies. According to Kluge, “it is possible to say that public

sphere is one of the means of production taken from the hands of the working class” (Süalp,

28

2004: 673). Kluge says that “both public and private spheres weakens in the dissolving sense

of community” (2004: 673). According to Kluge, there is a public sphere in almost everything,

so whatever the dominant ideology is, there is the potential to be a counter public sphere, it is

not impossible (2004: 673).

Is it possible to create this counter public sphere, which Kluge points to, in the cinema?

How does cinema have the ground to be an alternative public sphere? In order to find answers

to these questions, Miriam Hansen's book Babel and Babylon (1991) and her article Early

Cinema Whose Public Sphere (1990) are very important.

Hansen, in her article Early Cinema Whose is Public Sphere open whether the first

period of silent cinema can be considered as a public sphere debate. She explores the cultural

effect of cinema on immigrants in the United States, and dwells on which segments of the

society cinema hosts at the beginning of the 1900s (Hansen: 1990).

In its second decade, American Cinema began to be discussed with class-centered,

public function concepts. Especially in the period when nickelodeons were on the rise, cinema

hosted people from different sections of society such as the urban poor and working class, South

and East European immigrants.

In the following decades, film historians, especially Lewis Jacobs with his book The

Rise of The American Film (1939), gives a more democratic and more American image of the

nickelodeon image (1990: 228). Thus the origin of the powerful myths of American mass

culture would be validated. The first period American cinema was formed around the working

class audience. Workers who live cheap apartments and have poor working conditions go to

these film theaters and come together with people from different walks of society (Hansen,

1990: 229).

As of 1914, cinema industry workers tried make middle class cinema audience. Cinema

is in the ideals of Griffith's transformation of the producing industry into art and the creation of

a cultured mass of audience. The cultural dignity effort, the rise of the hegemony of narrative

cinema, would lead to changes in the dynamics of public status of the cinema. All this work by

Griffith is an attempt to bourgeise the cinema and is an effort to create an ideal bourgeois public

sphere in cinema (Hansen, 1990: 229). The cinema, which they attempted to rearrange with the

cultural standards of the bourgeois public sphere, formed its own narrative in time. On the film

production side, there is a compulsory pressure on ethnic diversity; thus, no actor with obvious

ethnic characteristics can play the leading role (Hansen, 1990: 230).

29

Hansen presents the short film Muskeeters of Pig Alley (1912), which was shot by

Griffith in Biograph for this transformation in cinema. This film seems to address the problems

of immigrants and other urban poor, but the problem moves away from the representation of

the working-class experience with the stereotypes of competition and compromise. From the

beginning of the film, the position of the audience is between the inner and outer voice, being

a partner of the film and consuming it. The immigrant image in the film has become only a

décor (Hansen, 1990: 230).

The aim of the cinema industry is not to exclude the working class, but to transform the

working class into a part of the consumer culture and mass culture in a so-called democratic

melting pot. Hansen questions whether it is possible to create a counter public sphere in such

an milieu. According to Negt-Kluge, the possibility of the emergence of an alternative public

sphere cannot derive from the critical analysis of the classical public sphere, but from the

contradictory ground between the capitalist public spheres and the opposing fields within it

(1990: 232). Hansen, in Kluge’s words, says “in addition to his/her experience in the mind of

the audience, a harmony occurs in the mind of the audience by reflecting codes to them over

and over again in the cinema as in a number of cultural institutions” (Hansen, 1991: 13). In

other words, the codes presented in the cinema come together with the individual experience of

the audience and create a harmony in the mind of the audience, and as a result, the ground

public sphere is formed (Hansen, 1991: 13).

Beyond being a chance to sit in the dark after coming from the cold, the first period

cinema is a place where people with the same background and status can find friends, young

working females can try to escape the fate of their mothers, and this place has the potential to

become a new type of public sphere, beyond being a new public sphere. Then, until 1930s,

cinematic experience changes in an innovative way. The reality of the audience gets

increasingly deteriorated by the connection of a selected image into another image with fiction

techniques. Cinema audience, in fact, have their own experience with their life forms, ideas,

and perspectives, but with all these techniques, the cinematic experience and the audience's own

experience becomes incompatible (Hansen, 1990: 233).

Miriam Hansen compares the audience profile of American Cinema with the audience

profile of the Wilhelm Period German Cinema and takes on the distinctive birth myths of

German Cinema. Hansen states that in German Cinema, the audience is not focused on a

particular class, such as the immigrant, the working class unlike the United States. Cinema and

the hierarchical class structures around industrialization and modernization are seen as a threat

30

in Germany. Cinema was charged with supporting unemployment and inciting strikes. There

were people who want to censor the German Cinema and those who oppose this. Censorship

advocates argue that cinema numbs people and it is completely purposeless. Cinema in

Germany also has the potential to be a public sphere, but this potential is different from the one

in the United States. Women's passion for cinema is perceived as a threat in German cinema,

unlike in the American cinema. The female audience in the first period, with Negt-Kluge's

approach, poses more threats than the appeal of cinema to the working class (Hansen, 1990:

235-238).

Women, regardless of their background, were interested in cinema. Cinema was a place

for women to spend their leisure time after finishing their work at home. Women live in a

different world during the film screening. There are those who attach the qualities of being good

or evil to the cinema, some have seen cinema as a savior in an utopian way, and others have

defamed it. Altenloh states how cinema has taken on a powerful reality as follows (Hansen,

1990: 241).

Has many different faces as individual spectators. In any case, the cinema succeeds in

addressing just enough of those individuals’ needs to provide a substitute for what

would really be ‘better’, thus assuming a powerful reality in relation to which all

questions as to whether the cinema is good or evil or has any right to exist appear useless

(Quoted from Altenloh by Hansen, 1990: 242).

Cinema has evolved into a cultural production industry as a result of its mass marketing

strategies, but it also includes seeds that can oppose the forms of capitalist production and

consumption (Hansen, 1990: 242).

2.8. Evaluation

Cities are complex places that bring people from different parts of society together. It

offers more socialization opportunities to people living in it compared to the other areas. Urban

people have a variety of places such as film theaters where they can spend time for their leisure

time. It is not really possible to say that the created concept of leisure time is very innocent.

Süalp, says that our time and location is also tattered by the capitalist system says that the

fragmented nowadays where we are the crushed under all this hegemony. According to Süalp,

“the definition of leisure time is degraded to ‘theme parks’, planned with a logic of consuming

time in large shopping centers and well-equipped weekends spent there and entertainment and

31

activities” (Süalp, 2004: 657). In this context, the ground for an alternative public sphere gets

gradually destroyed.

Film theaters, which take place as a reflection of cultural-industrial production practice,

are becoming a part of shopping centers. Moreover, we are getting more and more away from

the atmosphere of Auspicious Incident in the early period of the American cinema which

Hansen addresses because the transformative narrative form in cinema has become even more

evident today. Many of the films shown in shopping centers are American films, that is to say

Hollywood films. Film theaters that show lives from different countries and different lives, host

different perspective are getting closed, which shows that the potential of creating a ground for

a counter public sphere is becoming increasingly slippery.

Nevertheless, today's urban milieu has the potential to create a counter public sphere, which

was conceptualized by Negt-Kluge. This is not impossible. The counter public sphere can be

created in civil society organizations, in an atmosphere where people from various parts of

society come together, develop a common experience, create a common discourse. Of course,

the transformed city and public spheres that are demolished without the consent of the society

also undermine the collective memory of society, which eliminates the potential of creating an

counter public sphere, though not entirely. Therefore, the protection of social spaces is very

important. In the next section, I will explain the concept of space will be explained with Henri

Lefebvre's approach and emphasize the relationship between space and collective memory.

32

3. SOCIAL SPACE, SOCIAL MEMORY AND CINEMA HALLS

Cinema halls have been placed of social meeting and gathering where people spend their

free time from past to present. As a narrative tool, cinema plays a role in creating/transforming

social memory. As a social meeting place, cinema halls also affect the formation of social

memory. Cinema halls hold a place in the memory of both the city and the community as a

social activity place in the city. In the metropolises, with the economic and political reasons of

life becoming more and more complex, cinema halls are transforming like everything that has

been transformed in the city. Shopping centers may replace the cinema halls which have been

transformed/closed. This rapid transformation of the city both damages social memory and

eliminates the possibility of cinema (an area of social cultural encounter) to create an alternative

public sphere.

In this section of the study, the concept of social space will be explained with Lefebvre's

approach, with an emphasis on the relationship between social memory and space, different

approaches to social memory will be presented and the relationship between cinema halls and

social memory as a social space will be examined.

3.1 Social Production of Social Space

The concept of space in the Dictionary of Architecture is defined as the gap, which

separates humans from the milieu to a certain extent and which is suitable for the continuation

of his actions, void (Hasol, 1979: 344). According to the definition of the Architecture

Dictionary, it can be said that space is a physical space containing social activities within.

French sociologist Henri Lefebvre, is one of the leading figures who examine space in

a multi-layered social sense. Henri Lefebvre, in his book The Production of Space (1991),

examines the philosophy of space through social production practices and discusses the concept

of space with its social dynamics by going beyond its physical dimensions. In The Production

of Space (1991), Lefebvre traces the space with its social dimensions by saying “Social space

is a social product”, so the space is produced socially (Lefebvre, 1991:26).

According to Lefebvre, space, which is a social product, “intervenes in production itself.

[…] Being productive and productive in its own right, space is included in production relations

33

and productive forces.” According to Lefebvre, space which is “the product”, “the productive

space”, “is the basis of social relations” (Lefebvre, 2014: 24).

Lefebvre, who states that space is a social product, also states that “space intervenes in

production and changes with the society and therefore the place has a history” (Lefebvre, 2014:

25). Lefebvre sees space as a political area because, according to the author, social space is also

a place that is aimed to be dominated by authority.

“Since space serves as a device for action as well as thought, in addition to being a

means of production, it is also a means of control, and therefore domination and power;

but this space, in its current form, is partially freed from its users. Although the social

and political (state) forces that give birth to this space try to dominate it, they cannot

succeed; even those who are directed to a kind of autonomy that is impossible to

dominate spatial reality endeavor to fix and eliminate it in order to enslave it (Lefebvre,

2014: 56).

Based on the above explanation, it is possible to say that space is a place that affects the

society as well as being affected by the society, which includes various actions and the

government tries to control it. Lefebvre summarizes the consequences of the “transformation

of social space into a social product” under several titles.

Lefebvre argues that “the physical (natural) space first disappeared irreversibly” (2014:

60). According to him, “natural space” is the origin and starting point of the social process, it

is still so, but natural space has been defeated over time. Natural space is both a space that is

tried to be saved and destroyed by unity, and the natural space still forms the background of the

painting, but has now become a decor. Natural space is now “the raw material that the

productive forces of societies are working on to produce their own space” (Lefebvre, 2014: 61).

Secondly, Lefebvre argues that each society, and therefore each mode of production,

has a space that is unique to itself, according to Lefebvre, space is a phenomenon that differs

depending on the society. Lefebvre states that in order to understand a society, the spaces of

that society need to be analyzed and gives the example of Ancient Greece. Ancient Greece is at

the origin of everything. Ancient Greece cannot be understood only from some texts and

discourses. In order to understand ancient Greece, it is possible to understand the rhythms of

everyday life with its centers, historical monuments (agora, temples, stadium) and a versatile

study (Lefebvre, 2014: 61).

34

According to Lefebvre's statements, it can be said that by losing the original natural

space, it has now become a commodity and succumbed to capitalism. In addition, as Lefebvre

states, the means of production, management and culture each society has may vary; therefore

each society may have a space of its own. The culture and management of societies may change

over time. Therefore, the space also changes historically and transforms.

Lefebvre proposes these three intertwined concepts to describe social space, which

cannot be evaluated separately: Spatial practice, representations of space and spaces of

representation (Lefebvre, 2014: 63).

Spatial practice includes “production and reproduction, specific places and spatial

clusters that provide continuity in relative commitment”. Representations of space depend on

“‘the relations of production and the order created by them’, information, signs, codes, frontal

relations”. Spaces of representation are complex spaces of representation representing

symbolisms (coded or non-coded), linked to the illegal and underground side of social life, but

also to art, which could possibly be defined as the code of the spaces of representation, not

possibly as the code of space (Lefebvre: 2014: 63).

Lefebvre continues to explain in detail the concepts of spatial practice, representations

of space and spaces of representation that he has put forward to envision space. Spatial practice

differs according to each society. According to this, the space is slowly produced by the

dominant and the people who own it. According to Lefebvre, the spatial practice of a society is

discovered by deciphering the space. Lefebvre explains the spatial practice in neo-capitalism.

According to Lefebvre, “Everyday reality (use of time) and urban reality (routes and networks

connecting work places, “private” life and leisure time) are tightly integrated within the

perceived space (Lefebvre, 2014: 67). Spatial practice is defined as “The daily life of a person

living in a housing estate in the suburbs. This does not allow leaving aside highways and

aviation policies” (2014: 67-68). In this context, spatial practice includes daily life practices

such as the road taken while going to work, end-of-work activities, and these practices vary in

every society. Therefore, in order to understand a society, it is necessary to focus on spatial

practices and analyze the spaces used. Representations of space are designed spaces. “They are

the dominant space within a society (a mode of production) designed by scholars, planners,

urbanists.” Lefebvre states that representations of space “tend to be directed to a system of

verbal, thus intellectually constructed, indicators” (2014: 68). Spaces of representation are “the

spaces that are experienced through the images and symbols that accompany the space. In other

words, the spaces of the ‘residents’ and ‘users’ are also the spaces of some artists” (2014: 68).

35

Places such as cinema halls and theater theaters can be cited as examples for the representation

spaces. There are some movie posters at the entrance of the cinema halls, areas such as the foyer

area are unique to the cinema halls and the images in the hall represent that the place is a cinema

halls.

David Harvey supported the ideas of Henri Lefebvre about the space and schematized

the spatial practices described by Lefebvre as follows:

Table 1- David Harvey's spatial practices scheme (1999: 248)

Accessibility

and

distanciation

Appropriatio

n and use of

space

Domination

and control of

space

Production of

space

Material spatial

practices

(experience)

flows of goods,

money, people

labour, power,

information,

etc.; transport

and

communications

systems; market

and urban

hierarchies;

agglomeration

land uses and

built

environments;

social spaces

and other 'turf'

designations;

social

networks of

communicatio

n and mutual

aid

private property

in land; state

and

administrative

divisions of

space; exclusive

communities

and

neighbourhoods

; exclusionary

zoning and

other forms of

social control

(policing and

surveillance)

production of

physical

infrastructures

(transport and

communications

; built

environments;

land clearance,

etc.); territorial

organization of

social

infrastructures

(formal and

informal)

Representations

of space

(perception)

social,

psychological

and physical

measures of

distance; map-

making; theories

personal space;

mental maps

of occupied

space; spatial

hierarchies;

symbolic

forbidden

spaces;

'territorial

imperatives';

community;

regional culture;

new systems of

mapping, visual

representation,

communication,

etc.; new artistic

and architectural

36

of the 'friction

of distance'

(principle of

least effort,

social physics,

range of a good,

central place

and other forms

of location

theory)

representation

of spaces;

spatial

'discourses

nationalism;

geopolitics;

hierarchies

'discourses'

semiotics

Spaces of

representation

(imagination)

attraction/repuls

ion;

distance/desire;

access/denial;

transcendence

'medium is the

message'

familiarity;

hearth and

home; open

places; places

of popular

spectacle

(streets,

squares,

markets);

iconography

and graffiti;

advertising

unfamiliarity;

spaces of fear;

property and

possession;

monumentality

and constructed

spaces of ritual;

symbolic

barriers and

symbolic

capital;

construction of

'tradition';

spaces of

repression

utopian plans;

imaginary

landscapes;

science fiction

ontologies and

space; artists'

sketches;

mythologies of

space and place;

poetics of space;

spaces of desire

Harvey states that all the titles in the table above are related to each other and argues

that “space cannot be grasped independently of social action and that space is shaped according

to power relations” (Harvey, 1999: 254).

Lefebvre first uses Marx and Engels' concept of “production” in explaining social space.

Lefebvre summarizes Marx and Engels' approach to “production” in these sentences: “People

who are social beings produce their own lives, their histories, their consciousness, their worlds.

There is nothing in history and in society that is not acquired or produced. Even ‘nature’ has

37

been transformed and produced as it presents itself to the sense organs in social life” (Lefebvre,

2014: 95). Marx and Engels explain social order, the production of things by observing the

relations of production. As the productive force, he first sees nature, then labor, the organization

of labor (division of labor), the devices used, the techniques, and the knowledge.

According to Lefebvre, the production of space is the condition and result of the

superstructure (Lefebvre, 2014: 110).

The state and each of the institutions that make up it assume a space and regulate it

according to their needs. Therefore, space is nothing but the “prerequisite” of the institutions

and the state at the top of these institutions. Is it a social relationship? Yes, of course, but social

space which is inherent in property relations (especially the ownership of the land) and on the

other hand, connected to the productive forces (which shape this land, this place) demonstrates

the reality of both formal and material polyvalence. Though a product to be used, to be

consumed, it is also meaning of production; networks of exchange and flows of raw materials

and energy fashion space and are determined by it. Thus, this means of production, produced

as such, cannot be separated from the productive forces, technicality and knowledge, the social

division of labor which shapes it, or from the state and the superstructures of society (Lefebvre,

2014: 110-111).

When we look at the above statements of Lefebvre, we can see that the space is also an

area desired to be dominated by the state. Social space can become more complex and turn into

a problem in urban life in everyday life. According to Lefebvre, the reason for the

transformation of space into a problem and the problems related to space grow is that the

productive forces grow depending on ideologies. Sovereign powers and ideology shatter the

space. Spaces is divided, classified, decomposed into spaces such as residences, work, leisure

places, tourism, physical spaces etc. Lefebvre argues that what is included in the space as a

result of this fragmentation and separation is unknowingly involved. Things that are

unintentionally included in the space are “lose their way with these information, breaks and

representations operating within its frameworks (Lefebvre, 2014: 116). Lefebvre states that all

the fragmentation of the space makes the space more difficult to understand (2014: 116).

Lefebvre says that in all this fragmentation social space is formed still. According to

Lefebvre, “the form of social space is meeting, gathering” (2014: 125). According to Lefebvre,

everything that is within the space comes together: Everything produced by collaboration or

conflict, such as living beings, things, objects, signs and symbols, comes together in space

38

(2014: 125). Lefebvre says that the city space “brings together crowds, products, acts and

symbols” even if it is not conscious of all this fragmentation.

Lefebvre examines the nation in terms of its relation to space and says that the nation

contains two moments. One is the market and the other is the violence of a military state

(Lefebvre, 2014: 135). The market “has been built slowly throughout the complex set of

business relations and communication networks, over a historical time” (2014: 135). With the

formation of the market, the flow of social economic activities accelerates. The other one is”

the government that uses the resources of the market or the growth of the productive forces and

seizes it with the power goals” (Lefebvre, 2014: 135). When all these concepts are read through

capitalist states, it is seen that space is rapidly bought, sold and transformed by economic

policies; additionally, the government tries to control the spaces that are thought to be

dangerous for political reasons, and sometimes access is to these spaces prohibited by the

government. In fact, prohibitions or demolition of spaces are not new. Throughout history,

many spaces, especially the monumental spaces, have been demolished by the governments

because the monumental spaces are important symbols for societies. Lefebvre says that all

moments of space “combine with perceived, designed, lived spaces, gestures and symbols in

‘monumentality’”. Through the monumental space, the individual feels belonging to a society

and “presents to each member of the society the image of his belonging and social face; it is a

collective mirror rather than an individualized mirror” (Lefebvre, 2014: 232-233). Monuments

provide social reconciliation to some extent. When a society was tried to be demolished by

conquests throughout history, its monuments were first to be demolished (Lefebvre, 2014: 233).

Demolition of space is not limited to monuments in today's cities. In the fourth section

of the study, many cinema halls, such as Emek Cinema, are being demolished. The cause of

these devastations is both economic and political. Space, which corresponds to a large period

of time, has become a commodity and has been bought and sold. With the neoliberal system,

the conversion of space into unearned income has increased, and many places became

destructible, dispensable, transformable and reproducible. The result of the demolition of social

spaces does not mean only the disappearance and the absence of a space. These demolitions

also destroy social coexistence, social memory, social experience and social life practices

because the individual needs a place in which she/he engages in social activities and her/his

habits are shaped in this space.

Socially produced space also shapes collective memory because groups sharing the

space both connect with the space and gain common memories in the space. For this reason,

39

space is an important factor in preserving and shaping social memory. In her book Bir Varmış

Bir Yokmuş, Serpil Özaloğlu compiled with Tahire Erman, examines urban spaces that have

been deleted from the memory in Turkey, by studying the relationship between social memory,

place and identity. In her article entitled Hatırlamanın Yapı Taşı Mekânın Bellek ile İlişkisi

Üzerine in this book, Özaloğlu states that “the physical milieu in which our daily life is spent

constitutes the context of our memories” (Özaloğlu&Erman, 2017: 13). This environment

includes the city, streets, houses, workplaces and all places where social activities take place

(Özaloğlu & Erman, 2017: 13). The environment which includes the daily life is transforming

increasingly in both Turkey and the world, which creates a loss in both the urban memory and

the collective memory. Recovering all these losses or seeing what has been lost may have

caused sociology to turn to memory today, therefore it may be useful to first explain what

memory is.

3.2 Memory

Most of the research topics such as how memory is formed, how it is preserved, and

how to transfer it to the next generation are carried out in an interdisciplinary manner in many

fields such as psychology, sociology and philosophy.

Memory is “the cognitive process, which is defined by perception, editing, coding,

storing and recalling / recognizing information, is the place where this information is stored and

the information itself stored in this way” (Budak, 2000: 121). For this reason, the concept of

memory needs to be handled with events such as “learning, forgetting and remembering”.

The concept of memory is defined in the Encyclopedic Education and Psychology

Dictionary, as “the power to consciously keep the subjects learned, their relationship with the

past in mind.” The definitions of memory in the Philosophy Dictionary are as follows:

1- The ability to recall past experiences. Recalling experiments or experiences,

portraying them in the mind and the ability to preserve the past in the moment

2- The non-inferential knowledge of the recalling subject regarding his/her past

experiences, states of consciousness, or objects that he/she has perceived in the past

3- When original events, facts and objects, images and ideas are not present, the

function that emerges from the protection of these in the mind.

40

4- The system or the place where such information is assumed to be stored (Cevizci:

2005: 224).

When all these definitions of memory are considered, it is seen that memory is recalling

and remembering a number of things that happened in the past such as memories, experiences

and knowledge. Remembering means that “a person uses his/her memory, and as a result of a

conscious effort, he/she brings to the surface of consciousness, an event or object that forms

part of the past, a certain knowledge or state of mind” (Cevizci, 2005: 109). Accordingly, it

may be right to express memory as a form of recalling effort.

“Memory gains meaning by transferring the accumulations from the past to other

generations. The bridge between the past and the future and the place where the present

lives is memory” (Atik, 2014). Therefore, the memory based on experience, experience

horizon becomes meaningful as it is transferred to future generations. Memory has been

seen in the field of philosophy as “the metaphor of placing the images in the mind”

Ancient Greece and has the aim of “recovering of the past completely by the moment”

(Barash, 2007: 12-13).

The fact that the individual lives in a society and many economic, political and

environmental factors that affect the life of the individual may have affected the study of the

social aspects of memory as well as the psychological aspects. Many approaches have been

developed following Halbwachs on the concept of social memory, first shaped by the work of

Maurice Halbwachs.

3.2.1 Various Approaches to Social Memory

Taking the memory differently from its individual characteristics, apart from

psychology, Maurice Halbwachs was the first to examine social aspects. Halbwachs discussed

the act of recalling associated with memory with its social aspects (Halbwachs, 1992). The basis

of all Halbwachs' work lies in the claim that memory is a “social phenomenon". According to

Halbwachs, memory is social because the individual gains memories in the society. When

individual memories are taken into consideration, it appears that these memories are directly or

indirectly related to other people. Therefore, someone else's memory, reminding is often

necessary to remember (Halbwachs, 1992: 38).

Halbwachs, who likens “social/collective memory to a coherent human body”, says that

“those who recall in collective memory are individuals who take power from this body”

(Halbwachs, 1992: 22). The reason why Halbwachs evaluates memory with its social dimension

41

is that “human being is a social being and therefore individual thoughts are formed with a

community that is connected to him/her personally, and recalling occurs with this community

again” (1992: 38). The person who recalls performs the act of remembrance “by placing

himself/herself in a social framework in which he/she is active while performing the act of

remembrance and interprets a memory through the filter of the social framework in which

he/she lives (Halbwachs, 1992: 38).

Considering collective/social memory as “the reconstruction of the past in present day

light” (Halbwachs, 1992: 34), Halbwachs emphasizes that memory is transformed and

reproduced in a guided way as it comes from the past to the present:

The framework of social memory is an empty form that is formed neither by the

combination of individual recollections nor by the articulation of recollections from

other places. In every era, the government reproduces memory, that is, past, according

to dominant ideas in society and uses memory as a means of production that enables to

influence the thoughts of society (Halbwachs, 1992: 40).

According to Halbwachs' above statement, it is possible to say that social memory is

reinforced by the government, and that memory is used as a tool to form the dominant thought

in society and therefore it is also a political phenomenon.

According to Halbwachs, the social memory “is not a spontaneous thing but a socially

constructed notion” (Halbwachs, 1992: 22). Memory is formed within the social layers and

society through the gathering of people.

According to Halbwachs, social memory is “everything that is used to construct an

image of the past that is compatible with the dominant thoughts of society” (Halbwachs, 1992:

40). Recalling the past, that is, memory is not likely to remain as a mirror of the past, to reflect

the past as it is when it reaches today. Halbwachs emphasizes that “memories do not reach the

present time in the same form, but are reproduced and transformed in the present” (Halbwachs,

1992: 40). According to Halbwachs, the memories of each era are kept and rebuilt today.

Memories that make up memory lose their clear appearance of the past. The reason for this is

that over time, many different things affects human life. Thus, memories lose the forms they

had in the past (Halbwachs, 1992: 47).

Halbwachs states that “some restrictions are imposed on the individual's life by the

government and that the individual is left with a limited space to establish his/her memory in a

conscious and belonging to a community way” (1992: 51). The government interferes with the

42

memory of both the individual and the society. The individual and the society cannot remember

their memories from the past as clear. “Society sometimes requires people to reproduce their

past thoughts. Thus, a number of changes occur in the memories of the individual. The

individual weaves, shortens, changes some events in his/her life and thinks that these memories

are absolute truths” (1992: 51).

Society from time to time obligates people not just to reproduce in thought previous

events of their lives, but also to touch them up, to shorten them, or to complete them so that,

however convinced we are that our memories are exact, we give them a prestige that reality did

not possess.

Halbwachs classifies and examines the factors that affect memory, such as family,

religion, social class, traditions, and occupational groups. According to Halbwachs, each

community has its own habits and rituals, and therefore has its own memory. Therefore, the

collective/social memory that an individual gain within the group to which he/she belongs may

differ in every society. Each society's formations such as family, religion, language, tradition

and social class differ, so Halbwachs emphasizes that each society has its own unique memory

(Halbwachs: 1992: 54-166).

Family, the smallest building block of the society, is important for the formation of

memory. Halbwachs states that “each member of the family recalls a common family history

in his/her own way” (1992: 54). According to Halbwachs, even in the most traditional society,

each family's way of recalling and lifestyle are different, but despite all these differences,

traditions continue, traditions evolve over time and it is not possible to evaluate the family

separately from the traditions (1992: 59). Each family has characteristics specific to the society

to which it is connected and each family is obliged to ensure the continuity of these relations as

a part of social relations (1992: 59). “Although the structure of each family is different from

each other, the family order in the general structure is similar to society and the family continues

from generation to generation with the logic that continues to regulate traditions and social

relations. It is the duty of the family to maintain the social order based on tradition” (1992: 83).

According to Halbwachs, another element constituting social memory is religion.

Halbwachs says that the traditions and thoughts of society have been filled with religious

doctrines since ancient civilization history. The symbols and rituals of each religion are

different. Religion has been influential in many wars, migrations, discoveries and the

establishment of new countries in history (Halbwachs, 1992: 84). According to Halbwachs,

43

religion, which is one of the reasons of belonging to a group, is one of the factors that affect

social memory.

The groups that make up society reconstruct their past, but in this construction process

the past is distorted. “Society tends to erase everything that can separate groups and distinguish

individuals from its memory.” Halbwachs states that society is capable of restructuring their

past. Families, religious groups, social classes and occupational groups transforms over time,

and in every period of society reminder are adapted and changed according to changing

conditions and the present (Halbwachs, 1992: 182).

Halbwachs's On Collective Memory (1992) study basically states that memory is formed

by collective recollections and that these collective recollections maintain the social order and

that memory can be distorted and transformed according to present conditions (Halbwachs,

1992: 189).

One of the most important works dealing with memory in a spatial context is Pierre

Nora's four-volume work Places of Memory, which works on French identity and memory.

Nora, in this book, gives examples of France's national history and discusses use of memory in

historiography, production and functioning of monumental symbolic spaces (Nora, 2006: 10-

16).

In the first chapter of his book, Between Memory and History: The Problem of Spaces,

Nora argues that memory no longer exists: “There's only one reason we can talk about memory

all the time: Memory no longer exists.” (Nora, 2006: 17). Nora associates the indication that

memory no longer exists with historiography and compares memory with history. According to

him, the reason for acceleration of the writing of history is that memory does not exist anymore.

Nora says “there are memory spaces because there is no memory anymore" (2006: 17). Nora,

points to the world-wide developments such as the growth of industry, globalization, media, as

the collapse of memory (2006: 17). Nora compares memory with history as follows:

“Memory and history: These are not synonymous; there are many things that makes

them contradict with each other. Memory is the life itself produced by the groups that

always exist. To this end, the memory is open to the dialectics of remembering and

forgetting, unaware of their constant deformation, very sensitive to all manipulations

and hand tricks, convenient for long uncertainties and sudden resurgence and is always

developing. History is the reconstruction of things that no longer exist, but this is always

problematic and incomplete: Memory is always an up-to-date event, a constant

44

connection with the present, history is a vision of the past. Memory only complies with

the details that reinforce it because it is emotion-based and magical; nurtured from

misty, mixed, intertwined, sketchy, private and symbolic memories; sensitive to all

types of transmission, screen, censorship and reflection. History, on the other hand, is a

mental and divisive task, so it requires analysis, discourse and criticism. Memory

sanctifies memories. History, on the other hand, throws the memories out of the door,

vulgarizes them. Memory gets its source from a group it fuses (Nora, 2006: 19).

Looking at Nora's comparison between history and memory, it is seen that memory is a

phenomenon that occurs between living groups and lives in the present, sometimes remembered

and sometimes forgotten. History, on the other hand, creates things that do not exist now in a

incomplete and wrong way, and in doing so, often erase memory and exclude memories, which

are an element of memory.

Nora believes that the memory that is connected to the group, living today, is no longer

there, and that the absence of a memory has created places of memory. Nora says, “Places of

memory are born from the thought that memory does not exist on its own; they are born from

and live on the belief that it is necessary to establish archives, to maintain anniversaries, to

organize rituals, to make gloomy funeral speeches, to notarize documents, because these

operations are not ordinary” (Nora, 2006: 23). Nora says that memory is now replaced by

history.

Memory is now changed and the social, collective memory is replaced by history, and

memory has gradually become extinct since history is an artificial writing. The past is now

recalled detached and fragmented from the present (Nora, 2006: 24-31).

Nora argues that the spaces that he mentions as being artificially created must have

symbolic meanings in order to become a place of memory. Historical spaces with symbolic

meanings are places of memory according to Nora (2006: 32). Nora argues that history writes

the memory that no longer exists according to its liking. In this context, history books are based

on the “recapture of memory” (Nora, 2006: 34). According to Nora, while history is based on

events, memory is based on space and takes its power from space. Nora shows places such as

cemeteries and museums as examples of places of memory (2006: 34).

Nora mentions that space is also a political phenomenon; giving examples about the

history of the Republic of France, he mentions how memory is used by the government and

states that the republic is systematically established in an “authoritarian, unifying, monopolistic,

45

universal and dependent on the past in an intense way” (Nora, 2006: 40). According to Nora,

the memory of the Republic was created by sovereign powers in an authoritarian policy of

consolidating the government, sometimes by creating imaginary enemies and fighting them,

and by “connecting the state, society and nation with love of homeland” (Nora, 2006: 40- 48).

Nora's memory reading, which she examines with the example of France, is actually

adaptable to many countries in the world. In order to consolidate its power and instill a love of

nation, the government creates a number of spaces and erases a number of spaces and traces of

these spaces in the past. When a reading of the Turkey’s history is conducted, it is seen that,

from time to time the existing government demolished the monuments such as statues or places

belonging to historical or past governments, and instead, built different monument which makes

people forget about the one demolished Therefore, the governments create a memory of their

own kind.

Nora states that memory is used as a political phenomenon throughout Europe and that

Eric Hobsbawm calls it “the invention of tradition” (Nora, 2006: 40).

Historian Eric J. Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger argue in The Invention of Tradition

(2006) they co-authored that the traditions that make up the memory of society are invented.

He says about the concept of invented tradition that “it includes truly invented traditions and

traditions that have been institutionalized on a formal way, as well as traditions that have

emerged and settled at great speed in a short and definable time - perhaps a few years - that

cannot be easily traced” (Hobsbawm, 2006: 2). Hobsbawm describes the “invented traditions”

as “a set of practices guided by publicly or implicitly accepted rules and displaying a ritual or

symbolic characteristic, based on repetitions in a natural continuity with the past, attempting to

instill certain values and norms of behavior” (Hobsbawm, 2006: 2).

According to Hobsbawm, inventing traditions is “in essence a process of formalization

and routinization that becomes evident with reference to the past (even if it does it again)”

(Hobsbawm, 2006: 5). Hobsbawm argues that historians are particularly interested in “invented

traditions”, because traditions legitimize social order and create social rituals and routines. The

invention of traditions is actually a history writing (Hobsbawm, 2006). Hobsbawm states that

in the invention of tradition all kinds of symbols and languages of the past are connected into

the present order and all societies possess these materials of the past (Hobsbawm, 2006: 7). As

an example of the materials used to create ritual to this end, Hobsbawm, gives old materials

such as festival tents, scaffolding for the display of flags, sanctuaries, ceremony places,

46

marches, ringing bells, paintings, cannons, government delegations in honor of the festival,

dinners, congratulations and speeches (Hobsbawm, 2006: 8).

Hobsbawm classifies traditions that were invented after the Industrial Revolution as

follows:

a) traditions that form or symbolize social unity or group belonging to real or artificial

communities b) traditions that establish or legitimize institutions, status or authority

relations c) traditions whose main purpose is socialization, instilling and transmitting

beliefs' value judgments and behavior conventions (Hobsbawm, 2006: 12).

Looking at what Hobsbawm wrote about the traditions that were invented in the post-

Industrial Revolution period, it is remarkable that all these traditions were created specifically

to ensure social legitimacy. The book compiled by Hobsbawm and Ranger basically shows how

the memory and history of society, in fact, was created in a way to strengthen the authority of

tradition and power and to maintain the existing order by strengthening the authority of the

government. This study shows that memory is not only a social but also a political phenomenon

(2006).

Another name that considers memory as a social and political phenomenon is Andreas

Huyssen. In his book Present Pasts (2003), Andreas Huyssen says that “‘Memory’ is always

temporary and unreliable and faces the curse of forgetting” (Huyssen, 2003: 28). According to

Huyssen, memory is a phenomenon that can be transformed by government as well as being

long-term or infinitely invisible. Huyssen also views technology as a tool that transforms

memory and uses it to strengthen the authority of existing governments. According to Huyssen,

many of the digital storage devices used today do not preserve memory, on the contrary, these

technological devices legitimize the existing order and ensure its continuity (Huyssen: 2003:

28-29). Thus, these devices, which are actually seen as a memory storage device, has the

function of memory transformation and reconstruction. Therefore, it is difficult to think that

these tools are reliable.

Andreas Huyssen states in another one of his studies regarding memory, Twilight

Memories (1995) that human memory is always subject to change because it is closely related

to a culture’s style of establishing and experiencing its temporality (Huyssen, 1995: 12-13).

Huyssen says that all these changes turn memory into a representation. According to Huyssen,

memory is actually a representation of the past rather than a reality. Huyssen talks about the

past saying that the “it does not exist in memory in a simple state, but it must be expressed in

47

order to become a memory” (Huyssen, 1995: 13). According to Huyssen, memory is a fiction

of truth rather than a storage system, rather than the truth itself when trying to recall the past

(1995: 13-14).

Regarding the memory expressing remembering, Huyssen says “although the past is

dependent on an experience of event its temporal status is always the present” (Huyssen: 1999:

13). Huyssen states that “remembering shapes our ties to the past and it defines us in the

present” (Huyssen: 1999: 177). Huyssen says that today, social memory is under the influence

of a different temporality structure with the accelerating speed of life and acceleration in

information with media images (Huyssen, 1999: 182). With today's information technology,

data has become easily stored and almost everything can be recorded by information

technologies, which creates time confusion between the past and the present, because the

recorded images actually belong to the past.

Huyssen states that societies take shelter in the past in the ideas about the future and the

perception that the wars and racism in the world is over and the humanity about the future has

opened a new page has been created but the cruelty still persists in the world. Huyssen states

that we are on the brink of a period called the memory boom all over the world because of the

non-stop developing technologies. According to the author, it will become increasingly difficult

to have a hold of the truth in all of this information chaos, and ultimately it will not even be

noticed that memory is gone. Thus, “when there is nothing left to remember, it means that there

will be nothing to forget” (Huyssen, 2003: 21). Nowadays, there is also the idea of preventing

the demolition of the things that will probably be remembered among the reasons of the increase

of memory studies.

Huyssen says “remembering shapes our ties with the past, and our forms of recalling

define us in the present. As individuals and societies, we need a past to establish and consolidate

our identities and to keep a future design alive” (2003: 177). According to Huyssen, social

memory is always based on reconstructions. According to Huyssen, the memory of society is

organized in rituals and institutions. Huyssen describes places such as museums and

monuments as places that shape the memory of society (Huyssen, 2003: 178).

The essence of Huyssen's approach to memory is that everything can be forgotten and

is in danger of being forgotten and that memory can be constructed as a means of constructing

the future. Therefore, according to Huyssen, memory is a dangerous construction tool.

48

Michael Schudson, known for his work in the field of sociology, says that, like Huyssen,

memory is a phenomenon constructed according to social rules. Schudson argues that memory

is a collective phenomenon that can be distorted in his article Dynamics of Distortion in

Collective Memory (2007). Schudson supports the ideas of Halbwachs, who conceptually

discussed social memory for the first time. There exists no “individual memory” according to

Schudson. “Memory is social. It is social because it has settled and been settled in institutions

in laws, standardized procedures and records rather than individual human minds” (Schudson:

2007: 179).

Underneath Schudson's notion that memory is distortable lies the assumption that “there

is no criterion for which we can calculate or judge what a true memory should be” (Schudson:

179). Schudson argues that judging individual memory is more difficult than judging collective

memory, and therefore memory can be skewed as follows:

“If it is difficult to judge individual memory according to a certain criterion, it becomes

more complicated when it comes to collective memory, because in collective memory,

a past event or a remembered experience is indeed a different event or experience for

all participants. Moreover, we can admit that a life story or life expectancy is the most

appropriate natural framework for individual memory, whereas there is not such a clear

framework for cultural structures. The individual chamber of individual memory is the

person, but it cannot be said that the actual chamber of collective memory is national or

linguistic boundaries (Schudson, 2007: 179).

According to the above statements, it is difficult to judge collective memory because it

does not have sharp limits. In addition, the remembering that occurs within a group differs

according to each member of the group because each member's past experiences are different.

Schudson argues that there is no such thing as individual memory because individual

recalling depends on too many external factors and rules. Therefore, according to Schudson,

“memory is primarily social because it has settled and been settled in institutions in laws,

standardized procedures and records rather than individual human minds” (Schudson, 2007:

179).

According to Schudson, the reason memory is social is that the way memory is given is

formal. In addition to social memory, Schudson also deals with the concept of cultural memory,

which relates to social memory. According to Schudson, cultural memory is a type of memory

that is “open to the use of the individual” and this memory is “distributed and spread through

49

social institutions and cultural structures” (Schudson: 179). What Schudson calls cultural

memory is anything that reflects a society such as tradition, custom, monument, history?

“Memory is sometimes embedded in collectively created monuments, artifacts and signs; such

as books, holidays, sculptures, commemorative. All this is the given form of memory, cultural

structures designed to protect and preserve memories clearly and consciously, often intended

to have a general educational effect (Schudson, 2007: 179). According to Schudson, memory

can become a distinguishing feature of various groups, such as occupational groups. According

to this situation, although memory seems to be individual, “it would be correct to define it as

social or collective memory because it is shared by a large group” (180). Schudson says “even

though the memories have a place for themselves in individual memories, they do not lose their

social and cultural qualities” (Schudson, 2007: 180). The reason for this is that individual

thoughts are formed through social and cultural stimuli (Schudson, 2007: 180).

Schudson summarizes collective memory in four main ideas. The first of these is that

memory “social”, the second is that it is “selective” and the third one is that “there are many

processes, both deliberate and unconscious, affecting the selection stage of memory”. The

fourth one is that collective memory is open to discussion (Schudson, 2007: 196).

In her book Cultural Memory, Egyptiologist Jann Assmann, known for her studies on

memory, examines social memory from a cultural perspective through the relationship between

“recalling”, “identity”, and “cultural continuity”. According to Assmann, what actually creates

memory is culture. Culture connects people by creating a world of “symbolic meaning” from

“common experience, expectation and places of action, providing confidence and support with

its unifying and binding power” (Assmann, 2015: 23). Assmann argues that what makes people

connect is cultural memory. Assmann explains the concept of “cultural memory” as follows:

“Cultural memory’ refers to the external dimension of human memory. When we talk

about memory, we usually think of an internal phenomenon and the place of this is the

brain of the individual, that is, memory is thought to be related to brain physiology,

neurology and psychology, but it has nothing to do with historical cultural science.

However, rather than the capacity and orientation of the individual, the external

conditions, i.e. the conditions of the social and cultural framework, determine what this

memory contains, how these contents are organized and how long they will be

maintained” (Assmann, 2015: 26).’’

In the above statements, it is seen that Assmann thinks that memory is formed through

environmental conditions and social relations. Assmann emphasizes four different dimensions

50

of memory. 1- Mimetic memory that is included in the field of behavior acquired as a result of

imitation. 2- Memory of objects that depict objects such as clothes, couches, and other things

that remind people of the past and emphasize the present. 3- Communicative memory based on

the ability to communicative with others. 4- Cultural memory that exists and continues its

existence with traditions, ceremonies and symbols (Assmann, 2015: 28).

Of the above-mentioned types of memory, Assmann focuses more on cultural memory

because, for Assmann, recalling is a culture. The author emphasizes the importance of the

culture of recalling and states that “the culture of recalling aims at the continuation of social

responsibility based on a group” and that the important thing is the question of “what we should

not forget” (Assmann, 2015: 38). In addition, Assmann says that the culture of recall is related

to “memory that gives community spirit” (2015: 38). Regarding the culture of recalling she

refers to as “the art of memory”, Assmann says “what space is for the art of memory, it is time

for the culture of recalling” (Assmann, 2015: 39). What Assmann is referring to in time is

actually the past, the time that has passed after something has happened. Assmann says that

“the past is re-established by recalling” and that “the past can only exist when it is in relation

with itself” (Assmann, 2015: 40).

According to Assmann, recall depends on time and space. Recalling requires a concrete

space to recall the figures, and the recalled contents must be lived in old times and must be

recalled periodically. Assmann gives holidays as an example. Regardless of religious belief,

there are certain holidays celebrated in every society and feasts reflect a common past tense

(Assmann, 2015: 47). Assmann argues that recalling depends on space as follows:

Memories are based on a living space. The house for the family, the village and the

valley for the rural people, the cities for the citizens and the geographic region for the

people living in a geography constitute the spatial recall framework. […] The space also

includes the things around the individual, the world of things that belong to him/her, the

things that belong to him/her as the bearer and supporter of his/her material

environment. […] Every community wishing to consolidate itself as a group wants to

create and guarantee such spaces not only as the stage of internal forms of

communication, but also as the anchor of their identities and memories. Memory needs

space, tends to spatialize (Assmann, 2015: 47).

In addition to space, Assmann believes that one of the most important things constituting

social memory is belonging to the group. According to Assman, social memory “exists with

those who carry it” and accordingly, “social memory can only be associated with a real and

51

living group” (Assmann, 2015: 48). Social memory occurs around people with common

memories. Belonging to a group is also important as space and time, which are the factors that

make up social memory. In a space, common memories are formed depending on time and

social memory is shaped (Assmann, 2015: 48). Assmann also argues that, as Halbwachs states,

“no memory is able to preserve the past as it is” (2015: 48). According to Assmann, the past is

constantly transforming. Social memory “not only constructs the past but also organizes the

experiences of the present and the future” (Assmann, 2015: 50).

Assmann emphasizes two different types of memory as communicative memory and

cultural memory as social recall forms. Communicative memory is a type of memory that is

based on the recent past, connected to the groups to which the person belongs to and

disappearing over time, limited to its carriers. Cultural memory, on the other hand, is a type of

memory that encompasses an inaccessible past and is even legendary and recalled with various

rituals such as religious ceremonies (Assmann, 2015: 60).

Like Halbwachs, Paul Connerton is one of those who support memory as social. In his

books, How Societies Remember? (1999) and How Does Modernity Forget?, Connerton

discusses memory with the recalling and forgetting behaviors of societies. Connerton says that

“our experience of memory today is largely based on our knowledge of the past” (Connerton,

2014: 9). According to Connerton, everything that happens today is related to the past. So what

actually determines the present time is the past. Social memory, on the other hand, is based on

“common memories”, according to Connerton (2014, 9-10).

According to Connerton, “when the images of the past come together, the existing social

order is justified” (Connerton, 2014: 11). Although the past does not preserve its past form as

it is today, “it is an implicit rule that those who have joined the social order should assume that

they have common memories” (Connerton, 2014: 11). Diversity of memories of related to the

history’s past often creates conflict, however social memory in general is used to legitimize

social order in a common memory (Connerton, 2014: 11-12). Connerton states that common

memories, which are the memory of society, are passed on to the next generations through

commemoration ceremonies (Connerton, 2014: 14).

According to Connerton, “there is an element of recalling in every beginning” (2014:

15). Connerton emphasizes the horizon of experience as he touches upon the element of recall

within the beginnings. According to him, each beginning is a continuation of the past

52

experiences. Connerton examines historical remembering in two categories: “commemoration

ceremonies” and “physical practices” (Connerton, 2014: 16-17).

Connerton also examines the relationship between social memory and history.

According to the author, although social memory is not a complete reconstruction of history, it

still mediates the reconstruction of history. The historian continues to question the narrators'

narratives while acquiring information. It is unlikely make sure that the narrator provides

absolutely accurate information (Connerton, 2014: 29). According to Connerton, especially in

totalitarian regimes, state apparatus tries to systematically erase citizens' memory. “The

totalitarian regime begins capturing the minds of citizens by depriving them of their memory”

(Connerton: 2014: 30). Connerton exemplifies this phenomenon, which he explains with the

concept of collective amnesia (loss of memory), in George Orwell's 1984 and expresses the

struggle of citizens against state power in these words:

It is to show that the people who understand that the struggle of their citizens against

the state power is a struggle to defend their memories against enforced forgetting and

not only save themselves from extinction from the beginning, but to remain alive in

order to transmit the next generations as witnesses of those who are the stubborn

recorders of the past (Connerton, 2014: 30).

Connerton argues that social memory permeates every aspect of everyday life. He

categorizes the memory that performs the act of remembering into three different categories as

“personal memory”, “cognitive memory” and “habitual memory”. Personal memory, which is

part of the research of the life history of individuals by psychoanalysts, cognitive memory

examined by psychologists who are linked to various rules and codes as part of the study of

universal mental abilities and habitual memory, which is an essential complement to the

successful and convincing implementation of codes and rules in cognitive memory (Connerton,

2014: 64-65). According to Connerton, all these types of memory are part of social memory.

Connerton deepens his study by associating habitual memory with commemorations and

bodily practices. The author emphasizes that commemorations are held in every society and

that these ceremonies are repeated every era. According to the author, ceremonies are actually

a form of sustaining and remembering the past and have an important place in the formation of

collective memory (Connerton: 2014: 72- 122).

Another form of recollection that Connerton suggests constitutes social memory is

bodily practices. According to Connerton, memory is a “sediment precipitated from the past

53

and forms a deposit in the past body” (Connerton: 2014: 124). Connerton emphasizes two social

practices that memory affects the body. The first is the practice of embodiment. Actions such

as a person's smile to the person he is talking to, and shaking hands when he meets someone

are embodied practices in society. A second type of action is the practice of recording.

Connerton considers it a practice of recording all of the contemporary gadgets such as

encyclopedia, photography, audio tapes and computers as they are the result of our purposeful

actions (Connerton: 2014: 124-125).

Paul Connerton examines how societies have lost their memory in his book How

Modernity Forgets?, unlike his book How Societies Remember?. According to Connerton, with

modernity, societies experience cultural amnesia (memory loss) (Connerton: 2012:11).

Connerton first describes modernity before he began to examine the cultural amnesia

experienced by societies. According to Connerton, modernity is “the expansion of vital

opportunities with the objective transformation of the social fabric and the gradual liberation of

the hierarchical hierarchy of groups with the formation of the capitalist world market, which

overthrows the feudal and ancestral constraints on a global scale” (Connerton, 2012: 14).

Connerton discusses the relationship between memory and space by mentioning the spatial

importance of memory in his book How Modernity Forgets?. Connerton says that memory is

“a very old understanding that depends on topography” (Connerton, 2012: 14). Connerton

describes the concept of “the art of memory” as follows with Cicero's example:

What is called the art of memory is situated in a huge rhetorical system dominated by

classical culture, reborn in the Middle Ages, developed during the Renaissance, and

began to collapse in the period from the invention of the printing press to the early

eighteenth century. Cicero described the application principles of this art in a short but

effective way: “People who want to train their memory skills should identify certain

places and visualize the images of things they want to remember and store them in their

designated places. Thus, the order of these places will preserve the order of things to be

remembered. Accordingly, “the art of memory” has been described as “a spatial

method” (Connerton, 2012: 14).

According to the statements above, Connerton seems to argue that memory is actually

collapsing with the means of recording and technology. Connerton states that, along with

modernity, one actually forgets many things about society, life, and this forgiveness is

associated with the speed of urban life.

54

The main source of forgetfulness can be associated with processes that separate social

life from locality and human scales. The superhuman speed, the enormous megacities that

cannot be kept in mind, the disconnected consumerism from the labor process, the short life of

the city architecture, the disappearance of walkable cities… The things that modernity makes

one forget are deep and wide; the measure of life being human, the experience of living and

working in a world built with familiar social relations… We are talking about a fundamental

change in what we can call the meaning of life based on common memories. That meaning is

eroded by the structural transformation that occurs in the living spaces offered by modernity

(Connerton, 2012: 15).

As Connerton points out, memory is undoubtedly more complicated when focusing on

everyday urban life. Rapidly flowing city life, rapidly changing streets, demolished and

replaced buildings; all these erode social memory. At this point it becomes increasingly difficult

to remember. Connerton examines recalling and forgetting in a spatial plane and divides

memory spaces into two. One of them is “monumental spaces” and the other is “locality”.

Connerton gives home and street as an example of the locality (Connerton, 2012: 20). Examples

of monumental spaces are “symbolic spaces that are found in the city as easily as place names”.

Historical statues, religious places (such as churches, mosques) in a city square where certain

rituals and ceremonies are held can be described as monumental places (Connerton, 2012: 20-

26). On the other hand, locality is more like a house that belongs to us and identifies with us.

The house is a place that contains memories and memory with its belongings, the people living

in it and the dining table on which meals are eaten. The streets of the city are an example of a

locality. Connerton says that “as streets are difficult to keep under control, it is a possible site

for large-scale controversy, and can turn into a political area at any time” (2012: 14). When we

look at the city life, it is seen that many marches and rallies take place in the streets of the city

and the government tries to control these streets and prohibits walking in some streets. For

example, rallies on Taksim Square in Istanbul on many subjects are forbidden. Connerton

emphasizes that the most important feature of the streets, apart from being a political space, is

“being memorable”:

When you think of the city we live in, or any other city, you often think of a street that

has had a strong impact on you. This street is easy to remember; because it helps you to

organize the city or district in your mind and establishes a boundary to tell you where

you are. Just like the Ringstrasse in Vienna… [ ] When we think of a city, we may not

think of a single street, but some streets which are remembered in a special way. Like

55

the French Quarter in New Orleans, the canal system in Amsterdam, or the “colonnaded

streets” in Bologna, locally known as porch streets... Above all, what makes a street or

streets memorable is the ability to give the city a gestalt (integrity), to bring order and

to create a focal point for the city (Connerton, 2012: 34).

Because of the dynamics it contains in the streets, the fact that it is so important in social

life has probably caused it to be one of the places where the governments has made the most

changes.

Connerton compares the monument space and the locality. According to Connerton, the

monumental space is a powerful memory space, but “the fear and threat posed by the cultural

amnesia is what gives birth to the desire to meet in the memorial space” (Connerton, 2012: 38).

“The relationship between monuments and forgetfulness is mutual: the danger of forgetting

leads to the construction of monuments, while monuments lead to forgetfulness” (Connerton,

2012: 37). Connerton points out that the reason why monuments actually cause forgetfulness,

is that “the monuments allow some things to be remembered, while some sort of discrimination

causes others to be forgotten” (Connerton, 2012: 37). According to Connerton, locality is a

much more effective cultural memory carrier than monuments because “it covers the world

before the age of mechanical reproduction” (2012: 40). Connerton mentions that everything

was done by hand before the age of mechanical reproduction and that the city was shaped in a

slow process before the 19th century (Connerton, 2012: 40). With mechanical reproduction,

everything accelerates and cities change rapidly. Connerton says that the rupture of the

forgetting and the rupture due to this rapid change in the cities has been seen since the 1800s

on the basis of the Marxist narrative, and that after the 1900s, it has progressed at an unstoppable

pace. According to Connerton, the emergence of forgetfulness differs in every society, but in

general, every society is affected by this forgetfulness, even if its temporality and extent change

(Connerton, 2012: 125).

Connerton states that with modernity, social memory is gradually lost and cultural

amnesia is formed. Gradual demolition of spaces, changes in streets; all this causes memory to

disappear, and even if there is a resistance movement in response to this loss, the resistance is

not strong enough because it creates a memory loss. Cities are now intertwined with technology

and information technologies have become a part of human life. While storing information with

technology is much easier, Connerton believes that this actually creates memory pollution. Now

the means of communication are now mixed with art, and human productivity and creativity

have decreased. According to Connerton, it is the “political-economic system” that produces

56

forgetfulness that creates memory loss and forgetfulness all over the world (Connerton, 2012:

125-140).

In his book The State of Postmodernity (1999), David Harvey mentions the transition to

a period of forgetting that encompasses the whole world, which he associates with the

economic-political system, and emphasizes the transience of modern life. Modern life is

“intertwined with “the ephemeral, instantaneous and fragmentary.” The connection between

history and its predecessor has been rapidly broken. Modern life has been condemned to live

with “the instantaneous and fremanted” (Harvey, 1999: 24-25). Harvey emphasizes that the

world in which he lived both “has abandoned the sense of historical continuity and memory”,

and “attempts to plunder and incorporate what he finds there” (Harvey, 1999: 71).

Harvey says that the memories of the past are kept alive in the space and states that the

memory cannot be thought apart from the space, and for memory, it is “a house that is the most

important of all where people's dreams and memories are formed” and emphasizes that the most

fragmented place is the memory of the society today (Harvey, 1997: 245). This rapid

transformation in the cities causes the spaces to change and collapse. There are also cinema

halls among the cultural and social spaces that have been demolished and transformed. The

demolition of these spaces, which bring people from different parts of society together and

enable people to communicate with each other in areas such as the foyer area, damages both

urban and social memory.

3.3 The Relationship between Cinema Halls and Social Memory

It is possible to see cinema as a product put forward in a collective structure with

production, distribution and watching practices. The cinema halls, which have been the social

activity area of the people living in the city since its birth, are cultural places that have a place

in both the memory of the city and the memory of the society. The fact that the cinema is shown

in a space and that the film itself contains within the urban and spatial elements and that it forms

an image in the minds of the audience with segmented images and sounds necessitates

questioning the relationship of cinema with memory.

Nigar Pösteki says that “the cinema is one of the most important tools for making the

memory of history and strengthening the social memory. In addition to films, cinema halls as a

meeting place are also important in creating memory” (Pösteki, 2013: 1).

57

Cinema can create a memory with its technological possibilities. The audience gets an

experience in the cinema halls and the audience can witness a past era in the film he watches.

It is not possible to call the history of cinema to show the truth without doubt, but the images

given form an image in the mind of the audience. Films create a perception in the minds of the

audience, strengthen the existing perception/memory of the audience or vice versa. Cinema,

fiction, shooting angles with the technological possibilities such as the memory of the audience

can play games. The stories of films can function as a source of historical and social

information. This process may not always give the facts as they are experienced. Since the

power of representation is in the hands of the winners, the information of those lost can cause

the reality to shift. For example, when Western films in US cinema are examined, Indians are

portrayed as an ethnicity that tortures savages and whites, but this is not the case. If the audience

has not done any research in this area, they may view white people as entitled by watching these

films. History is being rewritten with films with such deflections. Cinema takes the audience

on a journey in the past, touches history, and often transforms history.

Regarding cinema, Tül Akbal Süalp says “willingly or unwillingly, deliberately or

unknowingly, it witnesses the era it goes through, even goes further and reshapes a whole world

history, establishes a world beyond telling” (Süalp, 2008: 19). In this statement of Süalp, it is

seen that cinema is a tool that can be associated with memory. It is not possible to say that

cinema always expresses the truth, but cinema; tells the past, the period passed through, it can

distort the past while rewriting this historicality it contains.

Regarding cinema, Tül Akbal Süalp says in her other work Mişli Geçmişin Ülkesinde

Kaf Dağının Ardında: “Gerçek”? (In the Land of Past Perfect: Behind Mount Kaf: “Truth”?)

“it is an institutionalizing industrializing tool, popular cultural space and art, which includes

imperialist relations and based on ideological discourses” (Süalp, 2013: 303). Süalp also states

that it is the collective responsibility of the audience and the filmmaker to search for and find

the truth in the cinema, which is also an ideological tool that serves capitalism in general (Süalp,

2013).

Süalp says how many countries in the world were forced to forget and how the situation

has also been seen in Turkey as follows:

Our culture, like many others, is multi-earth, multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-time

and multi-spatial, and has always been tested with the government. It was repeatedly

cut off from the constituent elements, left incomplete, forced to forget and being

58

forgotten. It has often forgot, met again, confused, denied, ignored; arrogant for not

refusing to deny its apology; embarrassed for being arrogant; forgetful for being

embarrassed, has forgotten because of its shame, has forgotten because of its arrogance

(Süalp, 2013: 304).

In the above statements, it is seen that Süalp speaks of the policies of the government

on making people forget. According to Süalp, it is up to the filmmaker and the audience to seek

the truth in all this condemnation to forget (Süalp, 2013).

In order to have a different experience, it is very important to be able to watch movies

that open to different worlds outside Hollywood hegemony in theaters that open its doors to the

streets. Nowadays, the number of cinema halls that open to the streets has diminished and in

the shopping center cinema halls, which replace the cinema halls with the doors to the streets,

it is difficult to find films that are not produced in Hollywood. Film festivals give the audience

a different experience, giving them the chance to reach out of Hollywood. Even festival films

are now mostly screened in shopping center cinema halls. Lalehan Öcal emphasizes the

importance of the festival films that give the audience a different experience and emphasizes

the danger posed by the demolition or closure of the cinema halls in the multiplex theaters and

the opening of the cinema halls:

With neoliberal policies, we witness the image and class change of cities. The natives

are displaced, and the face of the natives (as we are familiar with the westerns) is never known.

It has always been said in Emek Cinema that “festival audience is different”. […] While the

multiplexes in the shopping centers which disrupt the perception, everything becomes the same,

the festival audience cannot stay “indifferent” any longer, it gets affected by the uniformization

and becomes unrecognizable. Proven by experience, if the perception of even a Godard film,

which is hard to fit in with experience, is trapped in a single multiplex hall, the future of film

festivals under these conditions is in danger of uniformization. Preserving spaces by resisting

the confinement of other worlds in uniformed theaters and the disappearance of the festival

audience with popcorn in the hall can be considered as a prerequisite for accessing films,

festivals and experiences as far as possible from censorship, commercial anxiety,

discriminatory and intrusive dominant discourses [1].

The cinema halls that are stuck in the shopping centers cannot give the audience the

same experience as the cinema halls that open to the streets and do not show the many films

shown in these theaters. Therefore, shopping center cinemas uniformize the audience and

59

destroy their memory both with the Hollywood content films they show and the closed

communication structure.

Pösteki states that with the closure or transformation of many cinema halls around

Taksim and Beyoğlu, cinema has lost its character as a “the bearer and reminder of culture”,

and states that the cinema halls that are being moved or transformed do not give the feeling of

the past and this situation damages the urban memory and social memory (Pösteki, 2013: 10).

Transforming or demolishing cinema halls damages both urban and social memory. With the

closure of the cinema halls opening to the streets, the potential of creating an alternative public

sphere conceptualized by Negt & Kluge and the potential of creating a social experience

horizon, that is, the common social experience, is gradually diminishing.

3.4 Evaluation

Social space is the place where people come together, share common things and

maintain social relations. As Lefebvre states that “the social space is produced socially”, the

place is produced socially and used socially.

When different approaches to the social memory, which the Halbwachs studied for the

first time studied in detail show that even in individual memories there are social elements,

therefore memory is social. Even in individual memory, social elements are dominant. Space

helps one to remember the past, and social memory is shaped in a space.

Since cinema halls emerged, they have been a social place where the inhabitants have

frequently visited, interacted with each other and went to other worlds and other lives with the

scenes on the screen. The fact that cinema halls contain social activities prepares the ground for

cinema halls to shape social memory. The memory of the cinema audience is shaped both by

the film shown and the spatial elements of the cinema halls (foyer area, posters, etc.).

In today's complex city life, many places are being demolished and replaced with

completely different places. All these devastations both damage social memory and are

increasingly destroying the potential of creating a counter public sphere discussed in chapter

one, because it is unlikely to develop a common experience horizon in the theaters where

multiple and mostly mainstream films are shown, which have become part of the audience's

shopping centers and divided into chambers with fragmentation.

60

Nowadays, especially with the urban transformation projects, the cinema halls that open

its doors to the streets are being closed and shopping centers are being built. The fact that

cinema halls become part of shopping centers changes the viewing habits completely and

narrows the audience's experience horizon. In the next section, the urban transformation process

in Istanbul will be discussed and examples from the cinema halls which have been

closed/transformed will be presented.

61

4. URBAN TRANSFORMATION AND TRANSFORMING PLACES OF MEMORY IN

İSTANBUL: CINEMA HALLS WITH DOORS OPENING TO THE STREET

Urban transformation is a phenomenon showing its impact on cities in Turkey as it does

all over the world. Urban transformation is carried out in many provinces of Turkey, including

major cities such as Ankara and İstanbul in particular. Urban transformation is not actually a

new concept; as urbanization accelerates and the population of cities increases, cities are

constantly transforming due to many factors. Urban transformation in Turkey, especially after

the 2000s (after the 1999 earthquake) is a concept that is frequently mentioned under various

laws. Urban transformation projects in Turkey, are especially offered within the scope of the

renewal of earthquake-resistant regions.

When urban transformation projects in İstanbul are analyzed, it is seen that some

projects are profit oriented rather than earthquake oriented. Within the scope of urban

transformation, social spaces are being demolished and being replaced by new ones. These

projects, which are taken as profit-oriented rather than social needs, replace the old spaces with

structures that do not conform to the texture of the city, and these spaces damage the identity

and silhouette of the city. There are cinema halls among the social spaces that have been

demolished within the scope of urban transformation.

Cinema, in Turkey, like all over the world, have had repercussions from the first moment

it was screened and the viewing spaces were opened rapidly. In the literature review, it was

seen that the cinema halls that opened its doors to the streets started to close rapidly since the

1960s, this process accelerated after the 1980s, and after 2000, several theaters remained in

danger of closing at any moment.

In this part of the study, the urban transformation will be discussed both as a concept

and under the various laws which came into force in Turkey, the relationship between the

transformation of the city and the transformation of the cinema halls will be examined within

the context of social memory and the transformation of the cinema halls in Beyoğlu will be

analyzed historically.

4.1 Urban Transformation

Urban transformation in Turkey shows the impact on social urban spaces as a neo-

liberal policy as it does all over the world and cinema halls, which are social spaces, are

62

transformed with the urban transformation. The cinema halls, whose doors open to the streets

and contain more organic relations, have decreased in number to the point of being disappeared.

In order to comprehend the effect of urban transformation on social spaces, it may be useful to

first consider urban transformation as a concept.

Akkar, defines the concept of urban transformation as “the whole of the strategies and

actions that are applied to improve the economic, social, physical and environmental conditions

of urban space with decadent and deterioration through comprehensive and integrated

approaches” (Akkar, 2006: 29).

Akkar says that urban transformation has five main objectives. The first one is “to

established a direct relationship between the physical conditions of the city and its social

problems.” The second one is “to respond to the need for physical change of many elements

forming the texture of the city” The third one is “to demonstrate a successful economic

development approach to improve urban prosperity and quality of life.” The fourth one is “to

introduce strategies to use the urban areas in the most effective way and to avoid unnecessary

urban expansion” (Akkar, 2006: 30). In addition, Akkar states that in the West, besides public

and private sector participation in urban transformation projects civil society organizations and

people from different parts of society have the right to come together and talk about negotiation

processes of urban policies (2006: 31). According to Akkar's statements regarding urban

transformation, urban transformation has many social, economic and physical dimensions.

Akkar says that “the changes and transformations in urban space are sometimes in the direction

of increasing the quality of space and life, and sometimes it manifests itself as economic, social,

environmental and physical collapse and degradation of the space” (Akkar, 2006: 29). When

the city is being transformed, ignoring the characteristics of the society living in the city and

not thinking about how the urban spaces will affect the society while transforming it and

considering this transformation only economically and physically, affects the quality of life and

social relations in the city negatively.

Ruşen Keleş, who made profound researches about the city and urban transformation,

states that urban transformation manifests itself as a form of intervention against the city. In his

book Kentleşme Politikası, Keleş states that “urban transformation is not a process that occurs

spontaneously but as a result of external intervention in the use of urban parts for social,

economic, cultural or even political purposes” (Keleş, 2016: 414). Together with the urban

transformation that involves the interventions in the city, the usage of the urban spaces and the

people who use these spaces change.

63

Keleş say that areas areas that are subject to transformation activities are “squatter

settlements, areas with a high number of illegal apartments, areas with high risk of natural

disasters, urban core areas with decadent areas in , city center and urban areas appearing to be

expire their economic life” (2016: 414).

From the above statements of Keleş, it is seen that the regions which are declared as

urban transformation areas are approached physically and economically. When urban

transformation projects are implemented, when the profile and social characteristics of the

people living in that region are not considered, urban transformation causes more harm than

good.

The process of urban transformation is highly linked to neo-liberal urban policies. The

impact of neo-liberal policies in Turkey, especially after 1980, has increased more and more.

In 1980, with the authority given by Süleyman Demirel to Turgut Özal, the so-called 24 January

decisions were taken. It was aimed wıth these decisions that Turkey's economic was joined to

the international neo-liberal system within the framework of the export-based growth model.

In order to achieve this goal, many measures were put forward to increase exports. “Many gains,

such as trade union rights, collective bargaining or high wages, which were obtained before

1980 by the labor community, were reduced or withdrawn with the help of the military coup of

12 September” (Balaban, 2017: 22). These decisions led to a radical transformation in Turkey's

economy, increase of private sector-based economy and gradual decrease of the public sector-

based economy. In addition to the decisions of January 24, “the drastic change affecting

Turkey's economy was the decision No. 32, entering into force in 1989” (Balaban: 2017: 23).

With No. 32, entering into force in 1989, “they tried to adapt Turkey national financial market

into international financial markets and complete freedom to monetary and capital mobility to

and outside the country was brought” (Balaban: 2017: 23).

Balaban states that “after 1989, due to the inability to control and tax the hot money

flows to Turkey, the country's economy was dragged into the crisis and the crises were tried to

be overcome by the structural adjustment programs dictated by the IMF” (Balaban: 2017: 23).

Balaban says that after 1980, as a solution to problems created in response to Turkey's neo-

liberal economic policies, the government directed Turkey to the construction sector with

policies According to Balaban, the growth in the construction sector based on the neo-liberal

economy can serve three purposes: a) the formation of a mass support and base by politics, b)

the compensation of loss in real wages by unearned income, c) meeting the short-term resource

and financing needs (Balaban, 2017: 29).

64

As Balaban says,, after 1980, Turkey fully switched to the neo-liberal economic model

and foreign money began to circulate freely in Turkey and after the crisis that occurred as a

result and with the support of the governments, orientation for the construction sector has

increased rapidly in terms of economic, political and unearned income purposes.

Osman Balaban says that the rapid population growth in urban areas in Turkey led to

the strengthening of the economy based on the construction industry. Turkey experienced two

growth periods in the construction industry. The first one was in the 1980s and the second in

the 2000s. The first growth period started in 1982 and continued until 1988. The second growth

period started in 2002 following the 2001 economic crisis and continued uninterruptedly until

2008, when the global economic crisis affecting the whole world occurred. Osman Balaban

says that the growth in the sector has been continuing since 2010 (Balaban, 2017: 23-24).

Keleş states that the government came to power at the end of 2003 brought the issue of

urban transformation into the agenda within the framework of a law. The concept of urban

transformation is used to describe “the renewal of squatter lands, which consist of old city

constructions and illegal buildings” (Keleş, 2016: 415). Various laws relating to urban

transformation have entered into force in Turkey as of 2003. In order to better understand these

demolitions, it may be useful to look at the urban transformation laws that came into force after

the 2000s.

4.1.2 Some Laws Relating to Urban Transformation in Turkey

In late 2003, after the government came to power in Turkey has entered into force on

various laws for urban regeneration, one of the most important of these is the law No. 5366.

Law No. 5366 is a law on “Renovating, Conserving and Actively Using Historical Assets” and

it entered into force in 2005. In the first article of Law No. 5366, the purpose of the law is

written as follows.

The purpose of this Law is to ensure that metropolitan municipalities, district and first-

tier municipalities within boundaries of metropolitan municipalities, provincial

municipalities and district municipalities, and municipalities with populations above

50,000, and special provincial administrations for the areas outside the purview of such

municipalities, reconstruct and restore, in a manner consistent with area development,

the areas registered and announced as protected areas by the cultural and natural heritage

conservation boards and protection zones of such areas which have been dilapidated and

65

are about to lose their characteristics, create zones of housing, business, culture, tourism

and social facilities in such areas, take measures against risks of natural disasters,

renovate, conserve and actively use historical and cultural immovable assets (Law on

the Conservation with Renewal and Usage with Surviving of Worn Historical and

Cultural Immovable Property, 2005: article 1).

The second article of Law No. 5366 explaining the decision-making authorities

regarding the selection of renewal areas is as follows:

The renewal areas are determined by the decision of the general assembly of the special

provincial administrations and the absolute majority of the total number of members of

the municipal council in the municipalities. Decisions taken by the provincial general

assembly in the special provincial administration and by the municipal council in

municipalities other than metropolitan cities are submitted to the President. In

metropolitan cities, decisions taken by district municipal councils are submitted to the

President upon approval by the metropolitan municipal council. The President decides

whether the project will be implemented or not within three months (Law on the

Conservation with Renewal and Usage with Surviving of Worn Historical and Cultural

Immovable Property, 2005: article 2).

According to the Law No. 5366, a historical building that has been damaged and lost its

property can be transformed into a different construction. TMMOB Chamber of Architects

Disaster Commission and TMMOB Chamber of Architects İstanbul Metropolitan Branch

Urbanization, Disaster Committee and Environmental Impact Assessment Board member

Master Architect Mücella Yapıcı states that this law harms our cultural heritage, our cultural

memory and our urban memory. Mücella Yapıcı, associates the entry into force of this law

“particularly in the historical areas of İstanbul, with them being able to sell capital in the fastest

way”. She gives Tarlabaşı, which was declared as renewal area according to the Law No. 5366,

as an example and states that many places such as this one is converted into unearned income”

(Personal interview, 16.04.2018).

Another important law concerning urban transformation is Law No. 6306. This law

entered into force in 2012. This law came into force as the “Law on Transformation of Areas

Under Disaster Risk.” The purpose of this law is; to determine the principles and procedures

for improvement, liquidation and renewal in order to establish healthy and safe living

environments in accordance with the norms and standards of science and art in areas with

disaster risk and apart from these, the areas where risky structures are located” (Law on

66

Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk, 2012). The second article of the law defines the

concept of “administration”. “Administration is composed of municipalities within the

boundaries of the municipality and the urban area, provincial special administrations outside

these borders, metropolitan municipalities in metropolitan areas and the district municipalities

within the boundaries of the metropolitan municipality if authorized by the Ministry.” The Law

No. 6306 draw attentions with the fact that the main enforcement powers are collected in the

hands of the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization and TOKİ.

The Housing Development Administration of Turkey (TOKİ) and the Housing

Development Fund were established after 1980. With this fund, the state encouraged the

production of housing in cities. Balaban states that “the Housing Development Administration

and Fund functions as one of the most important factors in growth in the construction sector

after the 1980s” (Balaban, 2017: 26).

Gradual increase of the construction sector in Turkey after the 1980s have brought urban

transformation projects carried out in the 2000s. Mehmet Penpecioğlu says that the growth,

expansion and transformation processes in the city have gained a different dimension since the

2000s, and that the city is intervened with unearned income-oriented policies rather than

meeting the needs of the society (Penpecioğlu, 2017: 163). Penpecioğlu states that “neo-liberal

urbanization strategies such as ‘competitiveness’, ‘attracting investments’, ‘brand cities’,

‘urban marketing’ and ‘gentrification’ are brought to the forefront in the intervention process

made after the 2000s, while the role and regular mechanisms of the capitalist state have been

restructured and defined in order to implement these strategies” (Penpecioğlu, 2017: 163). As

Penpecioğlu pointed out, the concept of gentrification is particularly prominent with regard to

the use of urban space and the change of users. The profile that uses urban spaces transformed

with urban strategies is also constantly changing.

As a social and cultural space of the city, cinema halls have started to transform rapidly

after all these neo-liberal policies. Especially after the 1980s, the cinema halls which opened its

doors to the street quickly disappeared and were replaced by shopping center cinema halls. With

the urban transformation laws that came into force after the 2000s, even the places that are

within the historical protection area like Emek Cinema started to be demolished.

67

4.2. Transformation of the City, Use of Space and Cinema

When the urban transformation is examined, it is seen that the people who use the

transformed spaces change and the people who use that space cannot use the renewed space

instead. This is related to the concept of gentrification.

Gentrification is defined in the geography dictionary “A Modern Dictionary of

Geography” as “the modernization of old houses under the standard of living in the center of

the city and the settlement of middle-class and wealthy families”. “A process occurring in Inner-

City areas wherby old, substandard housşng is bought, modernized and occupied by middle-

class and wealthy families (2001:107).

It is said that the concept of gentrification was first expressed by sociologist Ruth Glass

in the 1960s. Ruth Glass says the following regarding the concept of gentrification, which he

explained in the 1960s over a London district:

One by one, many of London's working quarters are occupied by middle classes, upper

and lower. The shabby, modest stables and barns, two rooms upstairs, two rooms

downstairs, were seized when the lease expired and became stylish and expensive

housing. Larger Victorian houses that have been previously or recently collapsed,

houses rented out room by room or used by more than one household have been

improved. Once this gentrification process begins in a neighborhood, it continues

rapidly until all or most of the users of the original working class are displaced and the

social character of the neighborhood is completely changed (Quoted from Ruth by

Smith, 2001: 438).

When we look at the above statements, the concept of gentrification is the replacement

of the low-income population living in middle-class or wealthy families by replacing relatively

old, depressed areas in urban centers. Gentrification in urban transformation is seen quite often.

The old owners of the renewed urban areas are displaced and the middle class or the wealthy

class is placed here. Therefore, to emphasize the issue of public sphere and social memory,

which is the subject of the study, the urban areas transformed with urban transformation are

now losing their character as an alternative, opposing public sphere, and the social memory and

urban memory are being demolished. Therefore, the profile of people using the city and the city

streets is changing.

As an example of gentrification in İstanbul, Tarlabaşı, Sulukule and Fikirtepe can be

given as examples. Following the urban transformation projects in these neighborhoods, it is

68

seen that most of the people who were living in these neighborhoods could no longer live in

these districts and people living in these districts in the past were replaced by middle class or

wealthy class. Therefore, the transformation of this whole city transforms both the space and

the people living in that space and destroys the city memory and social memory.

Ayşe Çavdar and Pelin Tan, in their books, İstanbul: Müstesna Şehrin İstisna Hali

(2013), discusses the urban transformation projects in İstanbul together with the interventions

to the city and the transformation of urban spaces and the use of urban spaces. It is seen in

Çavdar and Tan's book that after urban transformation projects, people living in a neighborhood

in the past and using an urban space are either displaced or transformed into a stranger with the

transformation of their neighborhoods (Çavdar&Tan, 2013). In the presentation of the book,

Çavdar and Tan state that urban transformation is a form of external intervention in the city, as

Ruşen Keleş says, and that this intervention destroys social memory as follows:

When you intervene to a city, you need to reorganize all the relationships that give it

vitality and originality. When a neighborhood is demolished in the city, the law of that

neighborhood with the other neighborhoods of the city disappears. […] In other words

to demolish the building or the neighborhood is actually to demolish the civilian

language on which the city is built (Çavdar&Tan, 2013: 8).

Similar to Çavdar and Tan, Ayla Kanbur also states how, with the urban transformation,

one loses one’s relationship with the society one belongs to and becomes a stranger as follows:

Together with the urban transformation, space also transforms. After the urban

transformation, when you go to a neighborhood or a place you have visited in the past,

you see that your friends or the people who have the same view of the world as you do

or intellectual perceptions or world view are no longer there or have been scattered

away, thus that place loses its meaning for you. In terms of style, let's say cafés, shops,

shopping centers, all of which causes the people who go there to change, and since it

appeals to a different people, you are no longer a buyer there. You do not feel personal

pleasure from being there, you do not feel a certain belonging, you become a stranger

(personal interview with Ayla Kanbur, 22.10.2019).

With the urban transformation, the individual feels himself/herself as a stranger in the

city. Urban transformation transforms the usage of urban spaces and social spaces.

One of the social and cultural spaces transformed with the urban transformation is the

cinema halls. Urban transformation is not the only factor that changed the cinema halls and

viewing habits, but it is one of the important factors affecting the transformation of cinema halls

69

With this transformation, the places where social activities take place are replaced by the

shopping centers.

Table 2- The Report on the Number of Shopping centers in Turkey measured by JLL in 2018

Active Under

Construction

Total

İstanbul 118 18 136

Ankara 39 9 48

Other Cities 254 16 270

Total 411 43 454

In the above table, the number of shopping centers that are present and under

construction in 2018 in cities of Turkey is provided. EVA Real Estate Appraisal Consultancy

Inc. and Akademetre Research & Strategic Planning company also conducted a research on the

shopping center sector presented it as a report. According to this report, when we look at the

chronological development of shopping centers in Turkey, the number of shopping centers in

1995 which was 12, increased to 264 in 2011, 345 in 2014 and to 369 as of March 2016. It was

414 at the end of 2016 and increased to 443 in 2017. In 2018, the number of shopping centers

reached 454. The period in which the numbers of shopping centers in Turkey, particularly in

İstanbul corresponds to the the period after the urban transformation projects. This increase in

the number of shopping centers in the city completely transforms the usage of the city and free

time activities and reduces the cinema which has the potential to be a social, cultural and artistic

tool to only a consumption element. Ayla Kanbur states that the cinema halls in shopping

centers are only an element of consumption with the following sentences:

A cinema halls in a shopping center is not actually a cinema halls by itself. Within the

consumption relationship within the shopping center, films also appear as a part of that

consumption or cinema can be considered as a kind of store. Therefore, going into the

shopping center does not create the feeling of going into the cinema halls. You go into

a shopping center but the cinema halls that opens its doors to the streets of the city is

side by side with the city, they have a direct relationship, there are no mediators. Or it

is on its own, its an independent being; you have an organic relationship with the city

when there are no mediators in between. What I mean is that, assume that you are

walking on the street and see a poster, you say that I have two hours, I going to watch

this movie. There is no such thing at shopping centers. In cinema halls with doors

70

opening to the streets, the relationship the street has with the city is as much as your

relationship in the city with that place. The cinema halls is actually one of these, when

you go into a shopping center while walking, you are disconnected from the city. In that

disconnection, the relationship between cinema and you is just like shopping. Rather

than making use of your time, you are shopping; it becomes a part of your shopping

process and you are in a building that is disconnected from the city. Therefore, I think

that the direct relationship you establish with the city also leads you to establish a

relationship with the cinema, and when you watch the cinema in the shopping center,

the relationship between the city and the cinema enters into another point, an

indirectness (Personal interview, 23.11.2019).

As it can been in the above statements of Ayla Kanbur, it is possible to for the shopping

centers to enter the relationship between the society and the city, disconnecting the society from

the city and transforming the city into a commodity, an object of consumption. As in other parts

of the world, in İstanbul, the cinema halls that opened its doors to the streets or in the

passageways, which contain more organic relations have been demolished/transformed and by

shopping center cinema halls. Beyoğlu has been one of the districts that have been the center

of culture and art in İstanbul throughout history, but even in Beyoğlu, there is almost no cinema

halls with doors opening to the street. The cinema halls, which had previously emerged as

singular theaters in the city, became multiplex theaters and then became a part of shopping

centers.

4.2.1 Cinema from Single Theaters to Multiplex

In the second section of the study, it was mentioned that cinema started screening as a

mobile and spread rapidly to all cities. The film screenings that were performed in places such

as cafés and restaurants, which were mobile in the early days, then passed to the established

cinema halls. In the second section of the study, it was stated that the first film screening in

Turkey was held by Sigmund Weinberg in the Sponeck brewery. Cinema in Turkey, like other

parts of the world, has been met with great interest changing since the Ottoman Empire and the

different subsequent regime. In the literature review, it was determined that the cinema halls in

Turkey rapidly increased in number until the 1950s (Gökmen, 1991).

The film screenings, which began in the late 19th century, underwent a series of changes

in both production and spatial terms towards the 1950s. In Turkey, particularly in İstanbul,

cinema halls continued to be opened quickly until the 1950s. The Second World War and the

71

period after the war affected the whole world and cinema could not escape the effects of the

war. The Second World War disrupted Turkish cinema in terms of both content and the cinema

halls. In his article Devlet ve Sinema-TV Kurumları El Ele (1998) published in Milliyet Sanat

Ömer Kavur explained in detail how US cinemas have led to a recession in European and

Turkish Cinemas since 1945 (Kavur, 1998). The destruction of World War II all over the world

has affected cinema, especially in Europe. The destruction caused by the Second World War

has affected cinema, especially in Europe. The number of people going to the cinema has

gradually decreased in both Europe and Turkey, and the American monopoly dominated the

cinema. According to Ömer Kavur’s study, the number of film theaters in Turkey was about

3,000 before television, but since 1974, it has decreased to 1750 in first active years of

television. (Kavur, 1998: 9). In his article Kavur mentions the difficult situation cinema halls

are in with the following sentences:

“Today, it is known that the number of cinemas that are still resisting is around 300. In

other words, 90% of our theaters have been transformed into other work places and only

10% is carrying on. A significant part of these cinemas already shows foreign films and

especially American films. Our television makes no effort to protect the cinema.”

(Kavur, 1998: 10)

As Kavur also said, the impact of the Second World War and the invention of television

has led to the closure of many cinemas in Turkey. The 1980s were the years when cinema halls

quickly closed.

In his article Düş Şatolarından Çoklu Salonlara Değişen Seyirci Kültürü ve Sinema

(2009), Hakan Erkılıç states that since the 1980s, with the economic decisions of 24 January

1980 and the 12 September coup shaping the liberalization policies, the cinema halls have

closed rapidly (Erkılıç, 2009: 146). Erkılıç says that after the 1980s, large cinema halls Turkey

began closing and some of them turned into a market, some summer cinema halls into parking

lots, while others were divided into small theaters (Erkılıç, 2009: 147).

Divided theaters represent the first examples of multiplex theaters, multiplex theaters

have spread all over the world as urban policies and cities have become consumption elements.

Kristian Feigelson says that movieplex theaters have been increasing after 1990s with the crisis

created by the cities and he views the increase of movieplex theaters as the gradual

disintegration of societies (Feigelson, 2014: 37).

“While theaters where art and experimental films are screened are usually located in the

city center, the multiplexes, which are established in the neighboring city, mostly in the

72

commercial centers, appear to be the symbols of consumer societies that are both

enormous and exclusive. The new arrangement of cinema halls in the urban

environment points to the gradual disintegration of society and the loss of common

references (Feigelson, 2014: 37).

Feigelson states that multiplex theaters screen “standardized and profit-oriented films”

in order to protect themselves and these new theaters “transform the space into a new temple of

consumption” (2014: 39).

The transformation of the city is reflected in the cinema halls, cinema halls have also

been transformed with the transformation of the city as well as all over the world in Turkey. By

the 1950s, the number of cinemas called dream castles increased rapidly in Turkey and

especially İstanbul. With the introduction of television to life and spread in homes, cinema was

interrupted. This was followed by economic developments (Erkılıç, 2009). With the 1990s,

cinema halls with a capacity of 1000-1500 people begin to transform into movie complexes

with 3-5 theaters, and neighborhood and open-air cinemas started disappearing gradually

(Erkılıç, 2009: 149).

In the literature review it was seen that since the 1980s, in Turkey, as well as all over

the world with the opening and expansion of shopping centers, cinema halls began to turn into

a part of the shopping centers and that the neighborhood cinemas that could not compete against

these theaters were closed. Especially after the 2000s, these theaters became almost non-

existent; today, even the cinema halls that are in the historical conservation area can be

demolished, as in the case of Emek Cinema, and these cinema halls can be turned into shopping

center cinema halls with various urban transformation laws.

DVD technologies, the audience watching movies comfortably in the home environment

and the widespread use of series and movies on digital platforms such as Netflix nowadays also

affect the cinema halls because the audience can watch movies with high sound and image

quality in the home environment. Platforms such as Netflix often feature films and series from

the mainstream, so the audience watching movies at home becomes more and more

individualized, isolating itself from society and confusing the mainstream cultural hegemony.

Cinema is a technology-driven tool, but its social dynamics should not be denied and its social

characteristics should not be ignored.

The movie the cinema halls aters with doors opening to the streets, which are important

social spaces where people living in the city evaluate their free time and socialize, are almost

73

gone. Other than the remaining few in shopping centers, theaters are in danger of being shut

down at any time because the laws and cultural policies that protect the cinema halls may not

be carried out adequately.

4.3 Transformation of Cinema Halls in İstanbul

Throughout history, İstanbul has been the central city for the birth and development of

cinema and especially Beyoğlu district, throughout history has been the social fusion field

where social and cultural activities were held. In his book Cadde-i Kebirde Sinema (2008),

Giovanni Scognamillo states how İstanbul is the center of cinema in Turkey as follows:

“Cinema chooses a city as its center in every country: a big city or the capital of that country.

It develops and connects his life to that city” (Scognamillo, 2008: 9). Scognamillo emphasizes

how the cinema center in İstanbul is Beyoğlu as follows:

Cinema has chosen such a city as its center and an appropriate region of a city with its

historical formation and characteristics, Beyoğlu, Pera. This is neither arbitrary nor

coincidental, because Beyoğlu is the most special part of the entire city, the old capital.

In fact, cinema, like most performing arts, entered Turkey from the palace, and from

there went to Beyoğlu. In Beyoğlu, it quickly jumped to other parts of İstanbul, first

with mobile cinemas with performances and sessions that are not established

(Scognamillo, 2008: 9).

Taking the first steps in Beyoğlu, İstanbul cinemas spread from Beyoğlu to other regions

over time. After the first film screenings in the Sponeck pub, Sigmund Weinberg made film

screenings at the Fevziye Kıraathane and in the karagöz scene (Özön, 1985: 335 ). According

to sources, the first established cinema halls built in Beyoğlu and Turkey was Pathe Cinema

(Gökmen, 1991: 15-18). It was later followed by Eclair (1909), Oriental, Cinema Theatre

(1910), Central (1911), Orientaux (1912), Gaumont, Lion (1913), Cine Palace, Magic (1914)

and Variete (1915) cinemas” (Gökmen, 1991: 15). The cinema halls such as Alkazar and

Elektra, which were opened in Beyoğlu during this period, are among the cinema halls that do

not exist anymore and which are important in terms of city memory and social memory

(Gökmen, 1991: 15).

Most of the first cinema halls were opened in the old theater buildings. The first

buildings built as cinemas are Majik in Taksim, Etual, Elektra, Sine Palas, Alhamra in Beyoğlu

and Süreyya cinemas in Kadıköy (Gökmen, 1991: 17).

74

The first theater built in the Beyoğlu district of Turkey is Pathe; Pathe is a cinema halls that

should have been preserved in memory and transferred to future generations, but this cinema

halls could not be preserved like many cinema halls that were lost.

4.3.1 Transformation Processes of Beyoğlu Cinemas

Beyoğlu has been the center of İstanbul in terms of culture and art, but the

transformation of social spaces in Beyoğlu has caused Beyoğlu to lose its old charm. One of

the elements that made Beyoğlu was the cinema halls, but the cinema halls that opened their

doors to the streets are almost no longer available. The transformation of all these cultural and

social spaces destroys the social memory by weakening the bond of people who had a

connection with Beyoğlu and who make up their memories in this neighborhood. Film writer

Övgü Gökçe, like Ayla Kanbur, says that the transformation in Beyoğlu distances people who

had memories there away from Beyoğlu and that these people are no longer in the

neighborhood:

Beyoğlu was not only a place to be visited but also a place of settlement, it is still home

to many filmmakers, protecting their offices and the companies of former producers.

Now the change of a whole population and the change of a whole function, from being

an area where people go for socializing, cultural nourishing, to a place where they do

not live long enough to do something like this for a short time, is very much related to

the loss or transformation of art spaces. These are processes that feed each other. As

Beyoğlu transforms, the need for public buildings is decreasing from the eyes of the

public, and as they dispose of it, a number of people who are the regulars of those spaces

or who experience Beyoğlu identity through those spaces begin to withdraw from

Beyoğlu and the population change is accelerating in this sense (phone call with Övgü

Gökçe, 25.09.2019).

Beyoğlu is a district with historical importance for İstanbul. As Övgü Gökçe says,

Beyoğlu can no longer preserve its former identity with its changing structures. People who

settle in Beyoğlu can no longer inhabit Beyoğlu. The spaces in the neighborhood and the way

they are used have changed, so the profile that uses the spaces has changed.

Scognamillo says how Beyoğlu is now a lost place as follows: “A lost Beyoğlu is

another example of the neighborhoods that are about to be lost in every big city, have lost their

brilliance, are basically geographically present, but live in more memories and are glorified”

(Scognamillo, 1990: 141).

75

After the literature review, it was observed that Beyoğlu was the central district in terms

of cinema halls in İstanbul. This is probably due to the structure of Beyoğlu, which have

included people of different ethnicities throughout history. In the literature review, it was

observed that most of the first cinema halls in İstanbul were opened by Levantines or non-

Muslims.

Table 3- Places that Screened Films in Beyoğlu in Chronological Order

Beyoğlu

Cinema Halls

Explanation

Sponeck The first film was made in Turkey in the years 1896-1897 in Sponek bar

that was in Galatasaray (Scognamillo, 2008: 11).

Pathe It started being used as a cinema halls in 1908 and is the first established

cinema halls in Turkey (Gökmen, 1991: 73).

Santral It is said that it was opened in 1911 on the İstiklal Street in the Syrian Inn

at No. 348, as the operators changed, it took the names of Şafak,

Cumhuriyet and Zafer respectively and left the cinema function to Ses film

studio. Today there are restaurants and business places where the theater

was located (Düştegör, 2010: 58).

Oryanto It was opened in 1912 on İstiklal Street at No. 50 and later changed its

name to Kısmet Cinema and after a while shut down after being operated

for a while (Gökmen, 1991: 66).

İdeal Ideal Cinema was located in the Halep Passage, which was built in 1885

in Beyoğlu İstiklal Street No.140 and was first built by the architect

Campanaki in 1904 as a theater (Gökmen, 1991). It began its screenings

in 1912 as a cinema hall (Scognamillo, 2008). Scognamillo (2008) states

that when the building was taken over by Süreyya Pasha, the hall turned

into a theater and became the Ses Cinema and Theater and in 1942, after

being purchased by Necip Erses it was turned it into an Audio Theater and

then into the Dormen Theater. When the old Halep Business Center in

front of the French Cinema was demolished, the cinema building was left

alone. With the initiative of the actor Ferhan Şensoy, it was transformed

into Ses Theater and still continues its activities in the Aleppo Passage

(Düştegör, 2010, 58).

76

Gomon- Saray Gomon Cinema is located in Beyoğlu İstiklal Street No. 112, Luxembourg

Apartment. In 1933, it was transformed into a Saray Cinema (Gökmen,

1991: 71). The building was purchased by Demirören in 1980 and was left

idle. Today, there is Demirören Shopping Center at its place.

Ekler Ekler Cinema, which is located in the Luxembourg Apartment at İstiklal

Street No. 116, is the former Odeon Theater (Gökmen, 1991: 86) In the

following years, it was named as Lüks and now it is also replaced by the

Demirören Shopping Center.

Cine Palas Cine Palas Cinema was opened at İstiklal Street No. 219. It was renamed

Şık Cinema afterwards. Akbank Beyoğlu branch is currently located at the

cinema hall (Düştegör, 2010: 61).

Unyon It was opened in 1914 with the name of Unyon at Kuledibi Büyük Hendek

Street No. 87. The theater changed its name to Apolon, Kuledibi and

Millet (Gökmen, 1991: 73). Today, there is the Neve Shalom Synagogue at

the site of this theater (Düştegör, 2010: 62).

Majik It is the first building opened in 1920 as a cinema hall in Taksim

(Gökmen, 1991: 17).

From

Cosmographe

to Fitaş

The Cosmographe cinema at İstiklal Street No. 26, known as Monsieur

Castelli's former mansion, later became Nuvo, Halk cinema and Mulen

Ruj (Gökmen, 1991; Scognamillo, 2008). After a while, this cinema was

demolished and replaced by a business center containing Fitaş for 1500

people and Dünya Cinemas for 1000 people. Thus, in 1990, a complex was

formed for the first time in İstanbul that collected 2 theaters at the same

entrance (Düştegör, 2010, 64). Today, the salon still serves as Fitaş

Cinema.

Etual-Yıldız

Cinema

Etual Cinema, located at İstiklal Street No. 91, was opened in 1933 and is

one of the first buildings to be built as a cinema hall. The cinema was later

named Yıldız, followed by Kadri Han and Etibank. (Gökmen, 1991: 17:

85). There is now a shop in place.

Elektra-

Alkazar

The cinema was opened in 1923 by Saffet and Naci Bey under the name

Cinê Salon Electra. The theater, which held screenings for two years under

the name Electra, was renamed Alkazar in 1925 (Evren, 1989: 44).

77

İsplandit Before Taksim Square was opened, it was operated on the side of Atatürk

Cultural Center.

Taksim

Garden

It is located on Cumhuriyet Street and is used as a casino, theater and

cinema.

Elhamra The cinema of Alhambra was opened in 1923 at the Elhamra Inn, İstiklal

Street No. 258 (Gökmen, 1991: 72).

Melek- Emek Melek Cinema was opened in 1924 at Beyoğlu Yeşilçam Street No. 5

(Gökmen, 1991). It was renamed Emek afterwards. In the fourth section of

the study, detailed information about labor will be given.

From Artistik

to Yeni Rüya

It was opened in 1884 at İstiklal Street No. 126 on the side of the Cercle

d'Orient building facing the street. The Artistic Cinema became Sümer in

1934, Küçük Emek in 1958, Rüya and finally Yeni Rüya. Until 2010, the

cinema continued its activities under the name of Yeni Rüya.

Opera to İpek Opera Cinema was opened in 1924 at İstiklal Street No. 118 and its

operator was İpekçi Brothers. Opera Cinema is one of the theaters that

hosted Atatürk who watched the movie Çanakkale War. The cinema

changed its name to İpek Cinema. Grand Pera Shopping Center rises

where the theater was located in the building block, which also included

Emek Cinema (Dorsay, 1990).

Lale Lale Cinema was opened on 6 April 1939 under the management of Cemil

Filmer on İstiklal Street (Gökmen, 1991: 81). Evren says that Lale Cinema

was divided into two mini cinema halls in 1988, took its place among the

festival theaters and opened its doors to festival films (Evren, 1998: 102).

Lale Cinema was completely closed in 2005 and the cinema audience lost

another theater which screened festival films.

Ar to SinePop Sinepop Cinema was first opened in 1956 under the name Ar. Burçak Evren

says that there was previously a garage at the location of cinema. The first

operator of the cinema was Vahram Arzuyan (Evren, 1989: 39). Sinepop

Cinema closed in 2012.

Atlas Atlas Cinema was opened in 1948 at İstiklal Street No. 209 and the theater

is located in the Atlas Passage (Gökmen, 1991: 165). Türker İnanoğlu and

İrfan Atasoy now run the historical cinema which was transferred to the

Treasury in 1985. The historical cinema, which has recently been restored

78

In the table above, as a result of the literature review, the film screening and the

formation of the cinema halls are provided in chronological order. This table does not cover all

the cinema halls in Beyoğlu, because in the review it was found that there were many film

screenings and cinema halls in Beyoğlu and not all of them are included in the literature. During

the research, it was observed that the name of the cinema halls has changed after the change of

the operator. Among the cinema halls in the table above, various cinemas such as Beyoğlu

Cinema, Atlas Cinema, Fitaş Cinema and Yeşilçam Cinema are among the rare cinema halls

that still continue their activities. The transformation or demolition process of some of the

cinema halls in the table is examined in detail in this section. The review started from Pathe,

the first established cinema hall of Beyoğlu, which has an important place in the literature.

4.3.2 The First Estables Cinema Hall of Beyoğlu: Pathe Cinema

Pathe Cinema is the first established cinema hall in Beyoğlu, opened by Sigmund

Weinberg in 1908 next to the City Theater building in Tepebaşı (Gökmen, 1991: 15).

and renovated from the sound system to the lodges and foyers, has three

different theaters for 500, 130 and 85 people (Düştegör, 2010: 72).

Yeni Melek Opening at Gazeteci Erol Dernek Street in 1952, Yeni Melek Cinema is the

first cinema hall in Turkey with two balconies and two foyers. Since its

opening, Yeni Melek Cinema beceme one of the most popular cinema halls

in Beyoğlu. The hall, which had been serving the cinema audience for 30

years, was closed in 1984 and remained idle until 2004. In 2004, Yeni

Melek Cinema was restored and turned into a cultural center, but then the

cultural center was also shut down (Düştegör, 2010: 72).

Yeşilçam Yeşilçam Cinema, located at İstiklal Street İmam Adnan Street No. 8, is

still being operated as Vault34 Yeşilçam Cinema today.

Cine Majestik Cine Majestik Cinema, which is located at İstiklal Street Ayhan Işık Street

No. 10, opened in 2003 and has 3 theaters in total. It is one of the rare

Beyoğlu cinemas that still operates today.

79

Pathe Cinema was active in Weinberg’s management for 8 years. The name of Pathe Cinema

was changed to Municipal Cinema in 1916 and it was named Anfi two years later (Evren, 1998:

16). In 1924, the name of the cinema changed to Asri and lastly it was named Ses (1998: 6).

Figure 4.. Beyoğlu’s First Cinema: Pathe Cinema

Burçak Evren says that “Ses Cinema was exchanged with the place operated as Operetta

and Comedy, thus the cinema was moved from Tepebaşı to Cadde-i Kebir” (1998: 16). The

theater built instead of Pathe Cinema is devastated in a fire. Burçak Evren states that this first

cinema has a fair hall and TRT warehouses at the fairground.

Today there is Ramada Plaza where Pathe Cinema was located (Düştegör, 2010: 83).

4.3.3 Elhamra Cinema (1923-1999)

The cinema, which started to operate in 1923 under the name of Elhamra, is one of the

oldest cinema halls in İstanbul. With its architectural features, the Elhamra Cinema is one of

the magnificent cinema halls in the cinema literature in İstanbul (İstanbul Encyclopedia, 154).

In the İstanbul Encyclopedia, the architectural features of the Elhamra Cinema are mentioned

as follows:

The single-storey building has a vault covering the hall in the very high barrel roof. The

entrance to the cinema hall consists of two doors behind the stage and there are lodges

separated by wooden poles behind the rows of seats. There are wooden poles on both

sides of the old wooden armchairs on the balcony which is accessed by narrow and

single-arm stairs on both sides of the theater. […] On the walls right next to the entrance

80

doors of the hall, there is a row of tiles that are said to continue from the floor to the

balcony floor during the first years (İstanbul Encyclopedia, 154).

In 1936, the Elhamra Cinema changed its name to Sakarya Cinema. This name was used

until 1944, then it was changed back to the old name. In 1958, the Elhamra Cinema was

transformed into a theater (Evren, 1998: 66).

Atatürk also watched a film at the Elhamra Cinema. The Elhamra Cinema became unusable

with a fire on 15 February 1999.

Figure 5. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk Watching a Film at the Elhamra Cinema

Elhamra Cinema is one of the first cinema halls in İstanbul and it is one of the historical

cinema halls that stands out with its architecture and therefore it is one of the important cinema

halls in terms of city memory. The Elhamra Cinema could not be preserved. Today, there is an

entertainment club where Elhamra Cinema was located.

4.3.4 Lale Cinema (1939-2005)

Lale Cinema was opened on 6 April 1939 under the management of Cemil Filmer on

İstiklal Street (Gökmen, 1991: 81). The first film screening of Lale Cinema was made with Tino

Rossi's Love Song, and based on the memories of Cemil Filmer, Burçak Evren mentions that

Lale Cinema has received great attention since the first film screening in his book Eski İstanbul

Sinemaları (Evren, 1998: 90).

81

Burçak Evren states that Lale Cinema has screened Paramout and Warner Bros films

for a long time and with the 50s it included more films about social issues. Evren also states

that the cinema that first introduced color-cinemascope technique to the audience in İstanbul

was Lale Cinema (Evren, 1998: 99). Evren states that Lale Cinema became a theater that was

identified with Turkish films after the 1959, that it screened foreign film after the 1970s,that it

had economic difficulties with the widespread use of television in 1975, and therefore the

cinema was not able to rent foreign films again which led to screening domestic films again.

Figure 6. Lale Cinema with the Movie Poster Kanlı Para

In his book Cadde-i Kebir’de Sinema, Scognamillo says that “Lale Cinema had its most

brilliant period during the Filmer period, after the Filmer it turned to domestic productions and

it was closed for a while in the mid 80s and two mini cinema halls were formed on the two

balconies that were used in the past” (Scognamillo, 2008: 45). Evren says that Lale Cinema was

divided into two mini cinema halls in 1988, took its place among the festival theaters and

opened its doors to festival films (Evren, 1998: 102). Lale Cinema was completely closed in

2005 and the cinema audience lost another theater which screened festival films.

4.3.5 First Building as a Cinema Hall in İstanbul: Majik Cinema and its

Demolition Process (1914-2007)

Majik Cinema was designed by Italian architect Guilio Mongeri in 1914 according to

some sources and in 1920 according to others and it was the first building to be used as a cinema

halls in İstanbul. Previous cinema halls were created as a result of changing the shape and

function of the existing buildings (İstanbul Encyclopedia, 276). The fact that Majik Cinema

82

was the first building to be used as a cinema hall in this sense shows that it is very important in

historical sense.

Figure 7. Majik Cinema

The French magazine Le Courrier du Cinema (Cinema Post) talks about the architectural

design of the Majik Cinema as follows: “The largest luxury theater of the world, it has the

capacity of 2,000 people. 600 seats and 200 places in the partition, 400 seats and 200 places in

the balcony, plus 35 lodges.” (Evren, 1998: 26).

The first operator of Majik Cinema was Halil Kamil Bey. The cinema took the name Türk in

1933, Taksim in 1938, and Venüs in 1946. It was transformed into a theater in 1974-1975 and

then became a cinema again. At the end of the 1970s, it served as the State Theaters Taksim

Stage (İstanbul Encyclopedia, 277). Majik Cinema was named Venüs and it was used as a

theater hall in 2009, about which Burçak Evren says the following:

“Majik or Venüs Cinema with its latest name, took the revenge of theaters turning into

cinemas in the beginning of the century. It is not a rule that theaters always turn into

cinemas, cinemas can turn into theaters as well. […] Our only consolation is that culture

and art institutions exchange among themselves” (Evren, 1998: 30).

Majik Cinema was used as a theater until 2007 and was emptied and left idle in 2007.

The project of constructing a 17-storey hotel and shopping center to be built with Maksim

83

Casino, which is located behind the Majik Cinema, has been approved by İstanbul Conservation

Board No. 2. [2]

Figure 8. Majik Cinema after being left idle

Figure 9. Construction of the hotel planned to be built in place of Majik Cinema.

Then, in 2013, Mehmet Ali Durucan, owner of the adjacent Metropark Hotel, filed a

lawsuit against the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality and

Beyoğlu Municipality for the cancellation of license and construction plans. The 1st

Administrative Court of İstanbul, which heard the case, cancelled the decision dated 21 July

2011, which was approved by the İstanbul Conservation Board No. 2 and the construction parts

of the Beyoğlu construction plans in finding them contrary of urban planning principles and the

public interest. Despite the cancellation decision, the construction continued to operate and was

sealed in January 2014. The decision of the 1st Administrative Court of İstanbul to stop the

construction of Majik Sineması's building was approved by the 6th Division of the Council of

State. [3]

84

Figure 10. Picture of the project to be built in place of Majik Cinema.

Majik Cinema became one of the cinema halls that serve the society sometimes as a

cinema in and other times as a theater. With the demolition of Majik Cinema, the social memory

of the people who created their memories and felt belonging to this place was demolished as

well.

4.3.6 A Sad Farewell to the Alkazar Cinema (1925-2010)

Alkazar Cinema is one of the important cinema halls in the city memory. The cinema

was opened in 1923 by Saffet and Naci Bey under the name Cinê Salon Electra. The theater,

which held screenings for two years under the name Electra, was renamed Alkazar in 1925

(Evren, 1989: 44).

Mythological animal figures originating from the Ancient Period are located between

the back of the archway of the building's entrance door and the floor mopping. It was sold to

DoğuBank on 10 November 1954 by the son of Yorga Haccapulo, the owner of the real estate

in which Alkazar Cinema was located (Evren, 1989: 46).

85

Figure 11. Entrance of the Alkazar Cinema

Alkazar Cinema, which was occasionally shut down due to economic conditions and

reopened again, was transformed into a new cinema in the 1990s with a team of filmmakers

including Onat Kutlar. Since 1994, Alkazar Cinema, which had been trying to screen films with

certain artistic concerns and had Onat Kutlar among its founders, had to close its doors on 1

March 2010.

Regarding the closing, Adalet Dinamit made the following statement on behalf of the

management of Alkazar Cinema:

“Unfortunately, we did not have the power to continue to be a small, unpretentious art

cinema like the heroic grocery stores against the 8-10 screened cinema halls made with

high investments in the shopping centers, equipped with technological facilities and

offering popular commercial films to the audience” [4]

Stating that they had to close the cinema halls for economic reasons, Adalet Dinamit

said that there was no support given by the state to the cinema halls outside the shopping center

which open their doors to the streets.

“We apologize to you on behalf of the central government, the Ministry of Culture and

the Municipal authorities, who not only regard cinemas as entertainment venues, not art

venues, but also impose additional taxation obligations called entertainment taxes and

make cinema halls obliged to screen American Film Industry's popular commercial

films, let alone giving a small support. We also apologize for having films that caused

criticism of our viewers from time to time to overcome economic difficulties. Alkazar

86

Cinema Hall is closing due to the fact that we do not have the means to continue and in

order not to disappoint the Alkazar regulars and viewers. We had to blacken the white

curtain we opened 16 years ago with the contribution of Onat Kutlar, one of our

founding partners and say goodbye to you” [4].

As Adalet Dinamit states, cinema halls opening their doors to the street where the

cinema audience has the opportunity to watch different films cannot compete with the cinema

halls in shopping centers. It is a great loss for the audience who wants to have a different

experience to have these theaters become unprotected which bring films outside Hollywood

together with the audience and offer the viewer a different way of seeing. None of the cinema

halls open to the street can screens films outside of Hollywood. In these cinema halls, the

mainstream films are often screened, but the viewing experience offered by the cinema halls

outside the shopping center is quite different from the shopping center cinemas. Alkazar

Cinema brought art and festival films to the audience for a long time. In this sense, the closure

of the Alkazar Cinema has demolished the social memory of the people who watched and

connected with the cinema there, and left the audience who wanted to watch films outside

Hollywood without a place.

4.3.7 Sinepop Cinema (1943-2010)

SinePop Cinema was located at the end of Yeşilçam Street and became one of the

important cinema halls in Beyoğlu's memory.

Sinepop Cinema was first opened in 1956 under the name Ar. Burçak Evren says that

there was previously a garage at the location of cinema. The first operator of the cinema was

Vahram Arzuyan (Evren, 1989: 39).

Renovated in 1956 and renamed as Yeni Ar, the cinema was renamed Sinepop in 1973.

Sinepop Cinema screened box office films for a long time due to industrial conditions. As of

1991, cinema has been one of the cinema halls which has been the center of the film festivals

(Evren, 1989: 40).

87

Figure 12. Sinepop Cinema

Mehmet Soyarslan, the operator of the cinema halls and owner of Özen Film, explained

that they had to close Sinepop for economic reasons. Soyarslan stated that Demirören shopping

center stole the customers of the cinema.

While closing the cinema hall, Soyarslan said “we lost too much money. There were

cracks in the walls and ground of the cinema hall during construction. The İstanbul Film

Festival did not give its films because it could be dangerous. We are no longer able to pay the

salaries of cinema workers”. Soyarslan also stated that the Beyoğlu Municipality was pressuring

them to renew their licenses as follows: “there was pressure from everywhere. There was no

work. It is a disaster for the independent cinema halls, we are in a serious crisis” [4].

It is seen from the statements of Soyarslan that the cinema halls that show the festival

films and open the curtain to other experiences cannot compete with the shopping center cinema

halls. It is difficult to preserve these spaces unless they are supported by cultural policies by the

state. The closure of the Sinepop Cinema has caused the festival audience to lose another place.

4.3.8 Yeni Rüya Cinema (1930 - 6 May 2010)

Yeni Rüya is one of the historical cinema halls of Beyoğlu. The cinema, formerly known

as Artistik, was opened in 1930 on İstiklal Street No. 126, on the side of the Cercle d'Orient

building facing the street, which was built by architect Valluary in 1884 (Gökmen, 1991: 129,

Evren, 1998: 31). “First opened by Arditi and Saltiel, the cinema halls was operated by

operators such as Mehmet Rauf Sirman, Cemal Ahmet Pekin and Osman Rauf Sirman” (Evren,

1998: 31).

88

The name of the Artistik Cinema was changed to Sümer in 1934 and to Küçük Emek,

which was adjacent to Emek in 1958, and later changed to Rüya and finally to Yeni Rüya

(Evren, 1998: 32).

When the name of the cinema was Rüya, it started to show erotic films after the 1970s

(Dorsay, 1990: 66). In 2009, the film was renamed Yeni Rüya, and as of 2009 it was

transformed into a cinema halls screening festival films.

Figure 13. Yeni Rüya Cinema with its final screening movie “Min Dit”

Yeni Rüya Cinema was closed on 6 May 2010 after the screening of Mın Dît (Ben

Gördüm). Following the screening of the film, a group of 200 people consisting of cinema

lovers, urban transformation opponents and İstanbul Culture and Art Variety organized a protest

against the closure of cinema on İstiklal Street against the demolition of Emek Cinema. Some

of the slogans used by the group were “Yeni Rüya is ours, İstanbul is ours”, “Audience don’t

watch, take care of your cinema”, “Look, they're demolishing here making a shopping center

instead”, “Urban transformation is a state lie”, “Demolish shopping centers, build

playgrounds”, Take [your hands off of Beyoğlu, Capital” [5].

It is seen from the above statements that cinema lovers and urban people try to protect

the cinema halls, which is a social space, and do not want its memory to be demolished. Grand

Pera Shopping Center rises in the place of Emek and Yeni Rüya cinemas, which were closed in

the Cercle d’Orient complex. The citizens tried to keep in touch with the city and opposed the

89

construction of a shopping center instead of the cinema halls in the Cercle d’Orient complex,

but the citizens lost these places, which constitute their memories and memory, against capital.

4.3.9 Saray Cinema, which turned into Demirören Shopping Center (1933-2004)

Saray Cinema was located in Luxembourg Apartment, designed by architect Jean

Parbori in 1875. Formerly a coffeehouse, the venue became Gaumont Cinema in 1913 under

the management of Gaumont Film Company and was renamed Saray in 1933 (Evren, 1989:

20).

In 1980, Erdoğan Demirören purchased the Saray Cinema, which serves in the passage,

and the adjacent block, which included the Lüks Cinema. In the 1980s, Saray Cinema was

frequently closed and reopened. The building block, which was completely discharged in 1996,

was left idle until 2004. In 2004, there were reports that the building served by Sin-En-Han and

Saray Muhallebicisi, including the Palace and Luxury Cinemas, would be demolished in the

1930s [6].

In 2004, İstanbul Protection Board No. 1 decided that the construction height of the

Demirören shopping center building could be in line with the registered building Cercle

d’Orient right next to it and the project was approved in 2005. The construction started in 2006.

In 2007, the area where Demirören Shopping Center was located was designated as a

“renewal area” by the decision of the Council of Ministers and the authority was transferred

from the Conservation No.1 to the İstanbul Renewal Areas Conservation Board. In 2008, it was

decided that the façade and height in the Demirören Shopping Center building are not

compatible with the registered cultural heritage, and it was decided to determine the height

façade arrangement by looking at the photographs of these buildings at the beginning of the

20th century. On the 21 December 2008, the same committee decided on the fact that the façade

arrangement prepared in accordance with the report of Yıldız Technical University was in

accordance with some regulations by making use of the old photographs in “Beyoğlu From Past

to Present”. On 20 September 2010, the İstanbul Renovation Board approved the facade

revision.

90

Figure 14. Comparison of the façades of Cercle d’Orient and Deveaux Apartment

As a result of the objections of TMMOB and various professional chambers, the renewal

committee no. 2 prepared a report at the request of Ertuğrul Günay, Minister of Culture and

Tourism of the period. The report of 8 November 2010 concluded to suspend the application

and demolish the contradictory floor/façade components, and a criminal complaint was filed

for those responsible [6].

Demirören Shopping Center, which has reached twice the height of Cercle d’Orient, has

been opened on 17 March 2011. Demirören Shopping Center was protested as well in the protest

on 17 April 2011 to protest the closure of Emek Cinema.

After Demirören Shopping Center was built, the Mayor of Beyoğlu Ahmet Misbah

Demircan was asked questions about the height and façade of Demirören. When asked the

question “As the Mayor of Beyoğlu, does this not bother you?” Demircan answered “If there is

an addition that exceeds the legal limits, we will of course be bothered. The renewal board

approved it. The image doesn't make me happy either, but we've done whatever it takes to be

legal” [6].

Beyoğlu Mayor of the period Ahmet Misbah Demircan also made the following

statements about the building:

“That building was in filth for years. Were the objectors happy now? We have provided

the renovation of nearly 5 thousand buildings in Beyoğlu so far. Citizens spent $ 500

million on their homes. If I have the slightest criticism of those buildings, I am ready to

answer. I'm proud of them all. But we are not the main decision-makers about this

building…” [7].

91

The fact that Saray Cinema was demolished on the grounds of a number of urban

transformation laws and left its place to Demirören Shopping Center today shows that cinema

lovers and urban people cannot protect the social spaces against neo-liberal policies. Demirören

Shopping Center was opened despite its excessive height which is against the law. In Saray

Cinema, social memories and memories of people who watched films in this place in the past

were formed. The demolition of the cinema and the construction of a shopping center in the

place caused the loss of the social space of the people who watched films at the Saray Cinema

and their connection with the city and Beyoğlu became weak because the profile of the people

who came to the shopping center instead of Saray Cinema is different.

4.3.10 Another Cinema, the Area of which Demirören Shopping Center Rises:

Lüks Cinema

Lüks Cinema was first opened in 1914 under the name Eclair at the Luxembourg

Apartment No. 116 on İstiklal Street. This cinema was a former Odeon Theater before it turned

into a cinema halls (Gökmen, 1991: 65). The first owners of the cinema were Emanuel

Kiryakopoulos and the operators were Vassilaki Papayonopoulos and then Niko Changopoulos

(Evren, 1998: 82). In 1933, Necip Erses and Rasim Day took over the management of the

cinema and it was renamed as Şark. In 1951, the name of the cinema was named Lüks (Evren,

1998: 82). At the end of the 1980s, Erdoğan Demirören bought all the blocks including Saray

Cinema and then, as Burçak Evren states, “these theaters were left idle and turned into a ruin”

(1998: 82).

Like the Saray Cinema, the building of the Lüks Cinema was demolished in 2006 and

the construction of the Demirören Shopping Center began. Thus, a cinema halls which has an

important place in Beyoğlu memory was lost irrevocably.

4.3.11 Yeni Melek Cinema

Opening at Gazeteci Erol Dernek Street in 1952, Yeni Melek Cinema is the first cinema

halls in Turkey with two balconies and two foyers. Since its opening, Yeni Melek Cinema

beceme one of the most popular cinema halls in Beyoğlu. The cinema made its first screening

with a musical called Merry Widow starring Lana Turner and Fernando Lamas (Dorsay, 1993:

79).

The hall, which had been serving the cinema audience for 30 years, was closed in 1984.

Yeni Melek Cinema remained idle until 2004. In 2004, it was decided to restore the Yeni Melek

Cinema into a cultural center [8].

92

Yeni Melek Cultural Center was opened with the initiative of Zeki Ateş, Kadir and

Erdoğan Albaş. It was observed that the Yeni Melek Cultural Center was shut down after a

number of concerts were held [9].

4.3.12 Shopping Center, Hotel and Residence Instead of Şan and Pangaltı İnci

Cinema

The Şan Performance Hall in Elmadağ was opened in 1953 as one of the largest cultural

venues in İstanbul. It was observed that Şan was used as a cinema hall in some periods and as

a theater hall in others. After the fire in 1987 after the performance of Ferhan Şensoy's Muzır

Müzikal play, Şan Performance Hall became unusable [10].

Instead of Şan Cinema, Şan City Shopping Center, instead of İnci Cinema in Pangaltı,

residence, hotel and shopping center complex projects was implemented.

Şan City Project first started out with a consortium including Surp Agop Foundation, a foreign

and local company, to start a project consisting of nursing home, office and cultural center

instead of renovating its real estate on an area of 15,600 square meters [11].

Şan Real Estate Development Construction has carried out the project in agreement with Surp

Agop Foundation, which is the land owner foundation. Within the scope of the project that the

construction will be realized in agreement with the landowner foundation, it is aimed to change

identity with the new project to be realized on the land of Surp Agop Foundation in Elmadağ

region of Taksim. It is planned to demolish the structures other than Surp Agop Hospital and

row houses which have the characteristics of historical monuments. Tezcan Yaramancı, who

became Chairman of the Board of Directors of Şan Gayrimenkul in 2009 and also Chairman of

the Board of Directors of Millennium Bank, said “this area also includes the old Şan Cinema.

We will build the Şan Culture Center instead of this cinema. There will also be a theater hall

and congress center. This investment of 150 million euros will also include a shopping center

and some residences in vacant spaces” [11].

The increase in construction for the project in 2010 was rejected by the İstanbul

Metropolitan Municipality on the grounds that it was contrary to the regional plans. In 2011,

Vission Europe, which carried out the project, received the necessary approvals. In December

2011, the ŞanTheater, which was recently used as a theater, was completely demolished [12].

The project, which includes many buildings such as hotels, hospitals, shopping centers and

cultural centers, has been decided by İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality to stop the project due

to the fact that the hotel, which is planned to be reconstructed from time to time, covers more

93

floors than it should be. It has been observed that the project was sometimes stopped and then

resumed and is still under construction [13].

İnci Cinema was opened in 1945 at Pangaltı Halaskargazi Street, No. 136-138.

(Gökmen, 1991: 100). The land where the İnci Cinema is located belongs to the Pangaltı

Armenian Catholic Mihitaryan Monastery and School Foundation. İnci Cinema is a cinema that

attracted a lot of attention during its period. İnci Cinema premiered many of Yeşilçam's films.

In addition, Pangaltı Inci Cinema hosted the festival at the beginning of the İstanbul Film

Festival [14].

İnci Cinema was demolished in 2012 for the construction of shopping centers and hotels,

along with the İnci Passage, which is located on 15 acres of land. Excavations during the

construction period revealed a number of historical buildings. The archaeological museum

experts determined that the finding was ”brick wall and horasan mortar” and it was built for

irrigation for agricultural activities during the second half of the 19th century. On 7 January

2015, the İstanbul Conservation Council decided to carry out excavations under the supervision

of the Archaeological Museum on the historical ruins in the land and to immediately stop all

kinds of construction and physical interventions in the plot. Despite many objections made by

the members from CHP of the İstanbul Municipality Assembly, construction continued [15].

Today, Lotus Mall is rising in the place of İnci Cinema. İnci Cinema's fate was the same as that

of Emek Cinema and İnci Cinema, like Emek Cinema, which was the scene of intense struggle,

was demolished.

After the demolition of İnci Cinema and İnci Passage, Lotus Nişantaşı stands out as a

replacement for these spaces. Described as “the new life center”, the following sentences about

the project appear on the relevant website:

Halaskargazi Street, which is one of the most valuable centers of İstanbul in the terms

of city's life and trade capacity, has been a the symbol of modern life since the beginning

of 20th century and transformed from housing apartment buildings and luxury to a

district where small commercial houses are common. As a result of this process which

accelerated especially after 1980s, the historical buildings of the district became

neglected and worn out. During this period, when the user profile of the buildings

changed, most of the apartment buildings lost their housing properties and became

warehouses over time, causing the region to lose its status as a district. With the Lotus

Nişantaşı project, we have taken an important step in restoring the former glory of this

valuable district of İstanbul and making it a dynamic and contemporary living space.

We aim to make this step a starting point for the development and further development

of our district [16].

94

The situation mentioned above in the form of losing districts' losing “the status of being

a district” due to the deterioration of the historical buildings and the places that have lost the

quality of housing is not actually related to the deterioration of the buildings. This is related to

the change of the resident profile there, ie the phenomenon of gentrification. Former users of

the districts, those living in these districts, and those who have connection there no longer live

in these regions or sever their relations with the district. Thus, with the demolition of the

historical places and the change of the resident profile living there, the districts lose their status

as historical districts. When the cinema halls were examined, it was observed that many

buildings were emptied and left idle for a long time, especially after the 1980s. Idle buildings

are worn out and become unusable over time. In this case, instead of being strengthened, these

historical places are demolished completely and shopping centers called as living centers are

built.

Especially after the urban transformation process, the cinema halls opened their doors

to the street were demolished and the remaining few cinema halls could not compete with the

shopping centers and faced the danger of being shut down at any moment.

4.4 Signs of Life

The fact that theaters which continue their activities at a time when the cinema halls that

open their doors to the streets are almost diminished can be shown as a sign of life. Existing

cinema halls include Fitaş, Yeşilçam, Atlas, Beyoğlu, Cinemajestik in Beyoğlu, and Rexx and

Kadıköy Cinema in Kadıköy.

Fitaş Cinema was opened in 1919 under the name Kozmograf. The first owner of the

building is Monsieur Castelli (Gökmen, 1991: 70). From 1951 to the second half of the 60s, the

cinema remained closed. Following the renovation, it was re-opened in 1965 as a business

center with 1500 seats for Fitaş and 1000 seats for Dünya Cinema. “Thus, for the first time in

Beyoğlu, a ‘cinema complex’ was created which collected the same entrance into 2 different

theaters” (Tan, 2015: 43).

Fitaş and Dünya Cinema became the biggest hall of Beyoğlu, not the cinema complex

it was in during the period. Fitaş/Dünya Cinemas started to experience financial difficulties in

1975. In the 1980s, Dünya Cinema of the cinema complex changed its hands to Sinevision and

Fitaş Cinema was rented to Zeki Alasya/Metin Akpınar Theater. In 1989, the seat section of

Fitaş Cinema was renewed and necessary technical arrangements were made; in December

1989, the old balcony section of the cinema was reopened in January 1990 as Fitaş Mini Cinema

Hall. Today, the cinema hall operating under AFM cinemas serves under the name of Fitaş.

95

Atlas Cinema was opened in 1948 as the biggest cinema of İstiklal Street with 1400

seats and 35 lodges. In 1977, Atlas Cinema passed into the hands of banker Kastelli and was

shut down. During that time the cinema hall underwent various modifications. After the

renovation, the main part of the hall was reopened in 1978 as a Jewelers’ Market and the

balcony as a cinema hall. In 1985, the historic building, including the cinema hall and the

passage, was transferred to the Ministry of Culture. After the renovation, the cinema hall

reopened in 1989 and still continues its activities with three separate theaters for 500, 130 and

85 people [17].

In the face of urban transformation in İstanbul, it became almost impossible for the

cinema halls outside the shopping centers withstand. Today, two cinema halls stand out in

İstanbul, both in terms of festival films and activities. One of these is Beyoğlu Cinema and the

other is Kadıköy Cinema. Beyoğlu Cinema is a preserved cinema halls that has faced the danger

of closure for a long time. The fact that the Beyoğlu Cinema is still able to continue its activities

is probably the spirit of fighiting after the demolition of Emek Cinema. Kadıköy Cinema opened

its curtains to the audience thanks to its new operators.

4.4.1 Springing to Life Once Again: Kadıköy Cinema

Today where cinema halls which open their doors to the street and offer festival films

are shut down one by one, Kadıköy Cinema sprang to life again after the demolition of Emek

Cinema.

Located in Kadiköy Passage on Bahariye Street, Kadıköy Cinema was opened on 2 April

1964 as a theater hall. The architect of the building, built by Arslan Eksioglu, is Melih Koray.

The venue, which had been the stage of theater activities by Yıldırım Önal for three years, has

been used as a movietheater since 18 May 1967 for economic reasons. In 1968 the ownership

of cinema was transferred to Erol Kocadağ. The management of the hall changed in the

following years. Between 1968 and 1980, the hall, which had film screenings in the winter,

served as a monthly rented touring venue for theater groups during summer. Since 2018, Funda

Kocadağ and her son Erol Yusuf have been operating the cinema. Kadıköy Cinema has come

to life again with its new operators [18].

96

Figure 15. Kadıköy Cinema

Kadıköy Cinema is one of the oldest cinemas in Kadıköy. The management of Kadıköy

Cinema, which has been operated by different operators since 1988, was transferred to Funda

Kocadağ, the daughter of Erol Kocadağ, who had been the manager of the cinema since 2018.

About Kadıköy Cinema, Funda Kocadağ said “It will host a crowded cinema lover as in the old

years. The hall, which hosted cinema in winter, opened its doors to Nejat Uygur, Ostrich

Cabaret and Dostlar Theater in summer. It hosted many valuable theaters. Thanks to the projects

prepared, Kadıköy Cinema will become the home of art once again” [19].

In an interview with the monthly cinema magazine Altyazı, Funda Kocadağı talked

about the Kadıköy Cinema as follows: “This will be a film and art center in Kadıköy where the

pulse of good cinema is pulsing. Movie are watched in cinema halls” (2018: 4). In an interview

with Ayna, a culture art program of Tele1 TV, Funda Kocadağ, the operator of Kadıköy Cinema

and Erol Yusuf, the son of Funda Kocadağ, Funda Kocadağ stated that Kadıköy Cinema is

working with Başka Cinema, and at Kadıköy Cinema, the audience says that they will not watch

box-office films screened in shopping center cinema hall and will always offer festival films to

the audience. Funda Kocadağ also mentions that she will make Kadıköy Cinema the center of

culture and art in Kadıköy [20].

The revival of Kadıköy Cinema and the screening of films from other worlds outside of

Hollywood is an important step. Various exhibitions are held in the foyer area of Kadıköy

Cinema, as well as events/interviews where a number of writers and artists are invited. It is

possible to say that Kadıköy Cinema has the potential of being an alternative public sphere

because of having a foyer area which enables people to interact with each other and as well as

having the audience has the opportunity to watch other world films.

97

4.4.2 Resisting Against Urban Transformation: Beyoğlu Cinema

The Beyoğlu Cinema was created in 1989 by merging some empty shops in the Halep

Passage on İstiklal Street. Beyoğlu Cinema was opened screening films from Europe and other

world despite Hollywood with the discourse “cinemas have been closed and passages have been

made for years, now we make a cinema out of a passage” (Çelen, 2010: 23). The opening of the

Beyoğlu Cinema was reported in the Cumhuriyet Newspaper dated 2 July 1989 as follows:

“The cinema crisis that began in the 1970s has shut down many cinema halls. The effects

of television and later video, people moving away from the cinema halls, neglect and

the impact of entertainment tax accelerated this process. The number of indoor and

outdoor cinemas, which went up to 3000s in the early 1970s, fell to 150s in 1989. Only

15 of these 150 cinema halls can show films with contemporary technology. In most of

the 3000 cinema halls passages, bazaars, business inns have been erected and nobody

has ever been willing to invest in cinema halls Will this pessimistic picture last? No.

The last two years have shown us that it won't last. Hundreds of thousands of audiences

have come across cinema halls that meet certain film and screening qualities. There

were queues in front of the box office. People were tired of watching television and

video and sitting at home. Watching quality movies in comfortable cinema halls began

to make them happy. In such an environment, we decided to break a passage in the heart

of İstiklal Street and build a cinema halls. The hall, which we call Beyoğlu Cinema, will

be a brand new hall in western standards from the seat to the foyer with its sound and

image. The most comfortable hall opened in Beyoğlu for the last 25 years...” (Çelen

quoted from Cumhuriyet, 2010: 23).

As can be seen from the above statements, the entrance of television to homes, video

technologies have reduced the number of cinema halls and audience. Technology is developing

day by day and is always in motion, it has no last stop. The cinema audience wants to watch

movies in comfortable theaters but cinema halls in the passages or the doors opening to the

streets, even if they have the latest technology in time, falling behind technically, has no

economic power to adapt to developing/changing technologies

Cinema is not only a means of entertainment, it allows sociality and being together

because cinema is a means of social communication, both in the way of production and in the

practice of watching. Therefore, going to the cinema and watching movies, perhaps, rather than

sitting in comfortable seats, admiring the vast possibilities of technology, perhaps require going

98

out of the comfort zone a little. Although the seats are not comfortable, having a film experience

outside of Hollywood, communicating with different people in the foyer area, discussing the

film watched at the end of the film; all of these are good reasons to choose cinema halls outside

the shopping center because shopping centers cannot offer these opportunities to the audience.

Beyoğlu Cinema is a cinema halls that has been the scene of festivals such as the İstanbul Film

Festival and Film October, and screens films outside the mainstream outside the festivals.

Therefore, Beyoğlu Cinema is one of the last remaining castles of the cinema audience to gain

different experiences.

Beyoğlu Cinema also had difficulty in withstanding in the period when it was difficult

to compete with shopping center cinema halls with the urban transformation and faced the

danger of closure. Beyoğlu Cinema has been rescued by those who went outside the comfort

zone and watched films and those who resisted against the urban transformation, however it is

not right to say that the Beyoğlu Cinema has passed the danger of closure completely.

Beyoğlu Cinema faced the danger of closing down after Emek in 2011. In 2013, the

Architecture for All (HİM) Associated initiated the “Beyoğlu Cinema Revival Project”.

HİM is an association founded in İstanbul in 2011, which aims to produce solutions to the social

problems faced in the country in the context of architecture and to bring new expansions to

architectural education [21].

In order to keep Beyoğlu Cinema alive, HİM organized a workshop in the foyer of the

cinema, a group of approximately 50 people consisting of regulars of Beyoğlu Cinema, young

teams interested in cinema, architects and students. In the workshop, physical deficiencies of

Beyoğlu Cinema and foyer, communication methods and suggestions for activities were

discussed [21].

HİM contacted the production agency Sarraf Galeyan Mekanik and advertising agency

El Turco Dijital, and prepared a video for SGM explaining the importance of cinemas and

Beyoğlu Cinema that provide different movie watching experiences. The motto of the video

was “Get Out of the Shopping Center and Protect Your Cinema”. The video was shared on

social media pages and reached to the cinema audience and citizens.

99

Figure 16. “Get Out of the Shopping Center and Protect Your Cinema” Poster Made for

Beyoğlu Cinema

In 2011, with the budget created by Beyoğlu Cinema, the HİM team started renovating

the cinema and foyer. The foyer area of Beyoğlu Cinema was renovated and production

opportunities of the cinema halls were increased. In addition, a film screening plan was created

for Beyoğlu Cinema in agreement with Başka Cinema [21].

Figure 17. Beyoğlu Cinema’s renovated foyer area

HİM, while struggling to save the Beyoğlu Cinema, said that “this time our efforts will

not go to waste” [22]. Based on this statement, the struggle to save Beyoğlu Cinema can be

seen as the struggle to save the last castle of the audience and the city defenders after the

demolition of Emek Cinema.

100

Some projects have extended the life of the Beyoğlu Cinema, but after a while the danger bells

rang for the Beyoğlu Cinema. Beyoğlu Cinema announced that it will close on 20 June 2017.

Beyoğlu Cinema executives said the following words.

“Independent filmmaking crashed. We have tried to stand independent among the

monopolized distribution and display chains. When we were unable to cover our fixed

expenses, Beyoğlu Cinema was closing in 2013 because we could not establish the

changing cinema technology. […] A total of 350 people came to the cinema hall in May.

We cut our expenses, we looked for sponsors but could not find any. We're not doing

anything attractive, so we don't deserve it, or we're not doing anything imaginable in

time” [22].

Saying “it has become impossible to continue our efforts to add a color with Beyoğlu

Cinema since 1989,” the operators of the cinema hall concluded the statement with “we hope

there will be some people who find it impossible to accept, to get rid of going to monochrome”.

When the Beyoğlu Cinema was about to close, the cinema returned from the brink of

closure when the film writers Cem Altınsaray and Utku Ögetürk took over the

management of the cinema. Cem Altınsaray made the following statement regarding the

takeover of Beyoğlu Cinema:

“People who founded this place years ago and lived to this day wrote a farewell text

with tears. At that point, I wrote a thread on social media and there was a public opinion

on this topic. Suddenly there was solidarity, and with the courage I received from there,

I met with the directors of this cinema, which I had been friends for a long time. We had

meetings one after the other. I asked for help from the founder of FilmLoverss, Utku

Ögetürk, and he started to be with me” [23].

In 2017, Beyoğlu Cinema initiated a project called “loyalty card”. In order to protect the

Beyoğlu Cinema, cinema operators issued a “loyalty card” and offered the audience the

opportunity to watch films throughout the year. Beyoğlu Cinema was protected by a number of

sponsorships supported by loyalty card supporters, Cem Altınsaray and Utku Ögetürk. Beyoğlu

Cinema survived with the spirit of collective struggle.

101

Figure 18. Beyoğlu Cinema Loyalty Card

In January 2018, Altyazı Journal had an interview with Cem Altınsaray and Utku

Ögetürk, the manager of Beyoğlu Cinema. In this interview, Ögetürk stated that the efforts to

keep the Beyoğlu Cinema alive are promising, and that the loyalty card launched to save

Beyoğlu Cinema attracted the attention of cinema lovers but they still needed support. On the

other hand, Altınsaray emphasized that they did not lose their hopes for Beyoğlu Cinema and

that Beyoğlu could still be lived as a culture and art area.

Beyoğlu Cinema faced the danger of closure after the demolition of Emek Cinema, but

with a social solidarity, the cinema hall still continues its activities today. It can be said that it

has the potential to be an alternative public sphere for Beyoğlu Cinema because of the foyer

area it has and the other world films it shows as it is in Kadıköy Cinema, because the audience

can discuss the film in the foyer area and produce new ideas and witness different points of

view. Shopping center cinemas do not offer all these opportunities to the audience. For this

reason, it is very important to be able to protect the cinema halls that open their doors to the

street and offer the audience the chance to watch other world cinemas.

During the meeting with Cinema Writer Senem Aytaç, Aytaç said the following about

the status of the cinema halls that opened their doors onto the street and the Beyoğlu Cinema:

The rescue of Beyoğlu Cinema should be seen as a continuation of the Emek resistance.

Everyone started to take on responsibilities but of course it is very difficult, such cinema

102

halls are commercially quite difficult to maintain. Of course, you have to, because there

is no state support. Actually, the Ministry of Culture should support such cinema halls

because the Ministry of Culture supports a film so that you can shoot a movie, but then

those films cannot find a theater to be screened at. Mars releases big blockbusters, and

these movies are left with two or three theaters, if not none. For example, a lot of

awarded international films are released in 3-5 theaters in Turkey but they can be

released in 25 theaters in other countries. Because this monopoly of distribution and

screening is one of the biggest obstacles to cinema right now (18.04.2019 personal

interview).

As Aytaç has stated above, a collective struggle is not enough to protect the cinema halls

with doors opening to the street. Beyoğlu Cinema continues its activities with a collective

struggle but its preservation depends only on the support of the audience. Beyoğlu Cinema may

close one day despite the difficulty of competing with shopping centers and the audience factor

that cannot go to the cinema in the city's atmosphere. Cultural / social spaces are difficult to

exist unless they receive the necessary support from the Ministry of Culture. Therefore, state

support is very important for the protection of these spaces. As Aytaç states, the failure to save

Emek Cinema has a significant effect on the rescue of Beyoğlu Cinema. After the demolition

of Emek, the festival audience and city defenders who did not want to remain without cinema

have united and made the Beyoğlu Cinema live, but it is not clear whether the end of Beyoğlu

Cinema will one day be like Emek Cinema.

4.5. Evaluation

Urban transformation transforms many things in the city as well as cinema halls which

are a social/cultural space. With the transformation of the city, the cinema halls that open their

doors to the streets are closed one by one and the closed theaters are replaced by shopping

center cinemas.

In this part of the study, it was found that especially since 1980, Turkey has increased

the activity of the concrete-based construction unsustainable with the transition to the neo-

liberal economic model. Since 1980, especially in İstanbul, construction activities have

increased rapidly and the number of shopping centers has started to increase. Introduction of

television to the house after the 1960s in Turkey and multiplex cinema halls opened in the

shopping center with the political crisis and neo-liberal economy after 1980 caused the closure

of the cinema halls which open their doors to the streets and led to the retention of extinction in

the face.

103

Shopping center cinema halls cannot give the audience the experience of the those that

open their doors to the streets. The closure of cinema halls outside the shopping center leaves

the cinema audience who want to watch different world cinemas and want to explore other

glances. As stated in the previous section of the study, the social space provides the formation

of social memory and the closure/demolition of the cinema halls demolished the social memory

of the citizens/groups who prefer these theaters and also the possibility of meeting in an

alternative public sphere. Thus, both the possibility of creating an alternative public sphere by

the cinema melts and the social memory weakens day by day. Nowadays, urban transformation

projects leave the citizens without public sphere and make them memoryless.

The most powerful example of the cinema halls lost in the context of urban

transformation is the Emek Cinema. Emek Cinema could not be saved from demolition despite

social struggle and collective solidarity, citing a number of urban transformation laws. The

demolition of Emek Cinema has caused the city to lose its historical space and left film festivals

without a place. Today, most of the film festivals are shown in shopping center cinema halls

because the number of cinema halls opening their doors to the streets is almost extinct. As the

Lalehan Öcal stated in the previous section of the study, the realization of the festivals in

shopping centers cinemas “condemns the audience to uniformity”.

In the next section of the study, Emek Sineması, which was demolished within the scope

of Law No. 5366 on urban transformation, and the citizens trying to prevent the demolition of

cinema and the struggle to preserve the city and its memory will be examined within the scope

of social memory and public sphere.

104

5. EMEK AND RESISTANCE

Emek Cinema, opened in Beyoğlu Yeşilçam Street in 1924, has become one of the

oldest cinema halls in Istanbul. Located in the Cercle d'Orient building, Emek Cinema was

within the historical conservation area. The region, including Emek Cinema Hall, was

declared as a "renovation area" in 2006 with the law numbered 5366. Emek Cinema was

demolished in 2013. Thus, an 85-year historical cultural heritage was destroyed. Emek

Cinema has hosted the Istanbul Film Festival for 28 years. Now, Emek Cinema has an on-site

shopping center. In this part of the study, the demolition process of Emek Cinema will be

examined and the struggle to protect Emek Cinema will be handled within the framework of

social memory and public sphere.

5.1 Emek Cinema

Emek Cinema was opened in 1924 as Beyoğlu Yeşilçam Street number 5 with the name

Melek. The C'ercle d’Orient building, where Emek Cinema is located, was designed by

Architect Alexandre Valluary in 1884 and was built by Abraham Pasha and served for different

purposes before the building was used as a cinema. The building was first opened as the İstanbul

Avcılar club, later turned into a gymnasium, then it hosted a circus in 1909 and an entertainment

center named 'Skating Palace' after that. The building, which started to be used as a theater in

1918, was made into Melek Cinema in 1924 (Evren, 1998: 76).

Emek Cinema took its first name, Melek, from the yellow-orange Art Nouveau style

angel sculptures on both sides of the stage. Emek Cinema, with its theater for 875 people, is

one of the most advanced theaters of its period (Evren, 1998: 76). Burçak Evren says that the

most important feature of Emek Cinema's architectural features is that “it is a vertical and not

a transverse theater, and this feature ensures that the view from all sides of the theater can be

easily viewed” (Evren, 1998: 78). The cinema was operated by A. Saltiel and H. Arditi, who

owned the İpek and Sümer cinemas until 1945 on behalf of the Turkish Public Joint Stock

Company. After 1945, the owners of the cinema was changed and it was taken over by İstanbul

Municipality. In 1958, the ownership of the cinema was transferred to the Pension Fund and

the name of the cinema was changed to Emek (Evren, 1998: 76).

Emek Cinema, which undergone a detailed restoration process in 1993, was leased to

Kamer İnşaat for 25 years with the build-operate-transfer contract signed between the Pension

Fund and Kamer Construction. It is possible to talk about the danger of closing down at any

time after this date. The demolition of Emek Cinema has been associated with urban

105

transformation throughout the process. The Cercle d'Orient complex, which includes Emek

Cinema, was declared a renewal area in 2006 by a number of laws.

5.2 Urban Transformation and Emek Cinema

The destructiveness of urban transformation that affects many places of the city also

affects cinema halls. With the laws of urban transformation and the transformation of the city,

the closure of the cinema halls, which were left outside the shopping center in Beyoğlu, was

examined in detail in the previous section. The demolition of Emek Cinema was realized with

the urban transformation law no. 5366 called “Renovating, Conserving and Actively Using

Historical Assets”. Therefore, the demolition of Emek Cinema is directly related to urban

transformation.

The area where the Cercle d'Orient complex, which includes Melek Apartment, İsketinj

Apartment, İpek Cinema and Emek Cinema, was declared a renovation area in 2006 with law

no. 5366, and thus, endevors were initiated for the preliminary project that would spoil the

historical urban texture [24].

In October 2009, Kamer İnşaat prepared a preliminary project on the restoration of the

Cercle d'Orient building and with this preliminary project, after being approved by the İstanbul

Renewal Areas Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation Board affiliated to the Ministry of

Culture, it closed down after the screenings in the 28th International İstanbul Film Festival.

The fight to save Emek Cinema started in 2006 when Cercle d'Orient was announced as

a "renovation area". The citizens of this fight fought to prevent urban transformation from

interfering with their social spaces, to protect their cinema, to prevent the possibility of

experiencing the place with respect to their personal and social history while preserving their

cinemas, to preserve their social memories and not to lose the potential of public sphere where

they can share their experiences together.

5.3 The Fight to Protect Emek Cinema in the Context of Social Memory and Public

Sphere

In the study, it was determined that the concepts of “memory” and “public sphere” were

generally used as discourse in the fight until the demolition took place from the decision of the

demolition of Emek Cinema.

In the memory section, different approaches to “social memory” are examined. As stated

by Halbwachs in memory section, it is stated that “memory is a political phenomenon and it is

106

tried to be controlled continuously by the government”. Social memory takes place in a social

group, and the individual creates his memories in the society he connects to. In the memory

section, the relation of the space with the memory is focused and it is discussed that the memory

is formed in a space within the groups that use a space. In this context, with the demolition of

a social space and the difficulty of the people using the space to come together, social memory

will disappear over time and will be forgotten. Therefore, the fight to protect Emek Cinema,

groups who went to Emek Cinema, who had a memory with social experience in and around

the common viewing area, resisted in order to preserve the prospects of future experience and

not to condemn their past memories.

Cinema halls are cultural places that make up the memory of a city. Burçak Evren says

that cinema halls constitute the memory of a city and a society and in his article he wrote in

1998, he touches on the danger of the demolition of Emek Cinema.

Cinema halls also make up the memory of the city, which is equipped with memories.

Their closure or transformation into other places for various reasons damages a person

who has lost his memory, the cultural-artistic texture of a city, and impels the city and

the people who choose that city into an ineffective, unresponsive insensitivity,

lovelessness equivalent to memory. […] After the Palace, which is perhaps one of the

oldest theaters of İstanbul, Emek Cinema is about to be put into the pot. Wasn't Palace

Cinema, suddenly, surrounded by wooden curtains instead of a screen as a result of

similar rumors, and turned into a distant location in the heart of Beyoğlu? How many

people passing by today remember this cinema, or know that it was one of the most

modern cinemas once? Because the aim is to isolate it from the city and make it

forgotten, and then to demolish it. This is how the consciousness of contemporary

protection is realized by a memorylessness that is so simple but always gives positive

results for destroyers (Evren, 1998: 74).

As Evren states, the masses have struggled to protect their memory in the

“memorylessness” process. The struggle to save Emek Cinema from demolition is the struggle

to protect social memory and urban memory, and at the same time, it is a struggle to come

together and imagine a contradictory, different “public sphere” where a free-thinking

environment can occur.

It is discussed in the related section of the study that the ground of creating a

contradictory public sphere is getting harder and harder. Tül Akbal Süalp states that, as

mentioned in the first section, the ground where an opposed public sphere can be formed has

107

been gradually demolished. According to Süalp, one of the most important reasons for this is

the blockade with various power mechanisms and measures. About this, Süalp says “in the new

imperialist world, the public sphere is taken even more under new legal and detective measures”

(2004: 659). According to Süalp, in order to have a voice in the issues that concern the society

and to protect their own lives, the route is to fight and civil society ensures that this fight takes

place. Süalp states that new methods should be tried for the possibility of public sphere to

include everyone (2004: 660). The social struggle to save Emek Cinema and the methods

developed to save the cinema are also very important.

The group that opposes the demolition of Emek Cinema, Emek Cinema Initiative

expresses their struggle process as follows:

If we are against the demolition of Emek Cinema today, we are not doing it to protect

the past, but to protect our future. The historical importance of Emek Cinema, its place

in our collective memory, its meaning for festivals… There is something much more

important than all these: Emek Cinema has become the castle of the fight against

neoliberal cultural policies that want to cut the cinema's connection with the street, life

and society and to reduce the cinema to a free “image/idea circulation” that is not closed

in itself, to life and cannot be found in life. That is why we will not let it be demolished,

so we will not allow it to be stuck inside a shopping center. The doors of Emek Cinema,

which opens to Yeşilçam Street, now symbolizes the connection of the cinema with the

street and human rights fights. That's why it represents every street, every cultural

heritage, every neighborhood, every neighborhood that the renters intent on and plan to

smash [25].

The above statement can be considered the essence of the fight for Emek Cinema.

Protecting Emek Cinema means preventing the policy and unearned income between the city

and the society. In order to prevent the demolition of Emek Cinema, the masses who wanted to

preserve their memory and envision a different public sphere fought even if they could not

prevent the demolition as a result.

108

5.3.1 The Process Developing Towards the Emek Stage on the Upper Floor of the

Grand Pera Shopping Center, From the Historical Emek Cinema with Doors

Opening to the Street with the Claim of “Moving”

Emek Cinema was completely closed in 2009. The project that will demolish Emek

Cinema started to be discussed and Kamer İnşaat carried out this project. Partner of Kamer

İnşaat is Levent Eyüboğlu, who is the architect of the Grand Pera project. Many reasons have

been put forward for the demolition of Emek Cinema. Some of these reasons are that the cinema

is old, it is no longer profitable, it is under the risk of earthquake. Many architects, filmmakers

from different professions, such as the TMMOB Chamber of Architects İstanbul Metropolitan

Branch, Urban Architect, Disaster Committee and master architect Mücella Yapıcı, who are

members of different profession groups, developed a project to ensure that Emek Cinema can

be protected on the spot without collapsing, but these were not evaluated [26]

The argument of those who carry out the Grand Pera project and support the demolition

of Emek after Emek Cinema is closed, is that the Emek Cinema will not be demolished, the

facades of the Cercle d'Orient building will be organized, the shops will be transformed into a

regular passage, and the Emek Cinema will be moved to the top floor with the ‘moving method’

with the wall and ceiling embroideries, protecting its history. The cinema hall complex with 10

theaters would be constructed and Emek Cinema would moved to the top floor in accordance

with its origin [26].

It is not possible to talk about removing the ceiling decorations in a historical place and

moving it to the upper floor of a shopping center and preserving the originality of the place as

a result of this move. International Monuments and Sites Turkey National Council Members

(ICOMOS Turkey), made an the official statement regarding the moving of Emek Cinema with

the ‘moving method’. In this statement, ICOMOS Turkey, declared that it was not legally

correct to move Emek Cinema to the upper floor by building a shopping center.

“Dropping the protection status of Cercle d'Orient and Emek Cinema and building a

shopping center instead eliminates one of the most important historical building

communities built in İstanbul in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Such an

initiative can be described as one of the most serious attacks against the historical

environment in İstanbul” [27].

109

ICOMOS Türkiye expresses that a historical building will be demolished with the

demolition of Emek Cinema and claims that it should be preserved instead of

moving/demolishing:

“As in terms of production technology, it is a 1st degree work that needs to be preserved

in style. Such an important historical site should be preserved with its original

architecture. […] It is undoubtedly possible to build another space with similar

decorations after demolition, but this is not to protect the historical environment, but to

build a new building that ‘looks like a historical one’. The discipline of conservation

and restoration is another name for the deception of building 'so-called historical' spaces

with new materials and techniques. No sensitive experts and citizens who care about

historical artifacts and environments will not and should not be fooled by this deception”

[27].

Removing the motifs in a historical place, so-called action of moving it to another place

and calling the new place with the same name creates an illusion that the place is original. Space

is one of the elements that make up the social memory, therefore, to claim that a space is moved

and that the space moved is exactly the same as the space in the past, and that the space retains

its originality means “distortion of the memory” as stated by Schudson in the memory section

of the study. In the words of Paul Connerton, “history is rebuilt” by demolishing the historical

places and constructing a place as if it were the same as the old one. Therefore, it is not possible

to talk about protecting a historical artifact with this entire demolition process and talking about

protecting the social memory formed around that space.

The TMMOB Chamber of Architects İstanbul Büyükkent branch related to the project

that will cause the demolition of Emek Cinema filed a lawsuit in 2010 to stop the project. In

this lawsuit petition, with the law number 5366, it was state that it is not lawful to declare a

renewal area of the region, where Melek Apartment, İskentinj Apartment, İpek Cinema and

Emek Cinema serving the cultural life of İstanbul for more than a century with its historical

identity, baroque and rococo decorated walls, its magnificent theater for 875 people, and which

has hosted the International İstanbul Film Festival for 20 years.

In addition to its historical and cultural heritage, Emek Cinema has been included in the

Docomomo (Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the

Modern Movement) lists with its technological structure according to its period. For this reason,

it is very important to protect Emek Cinema as a historical heritage. The reason why the

110

Chamber of Architects demanded the halting of the preliminary project that will demolish Emek

Cinema is the following decision approving this demolition:

“It was decided that Beyoğlu Municipality's project for the demolition of all registered

buildings except the Cercle d'Orient building in the area and the construction of its

facades with new materials, such as theater decoration, and which suggests that the

Emek Cinema, which we mentioned above, be demolished and copied to the upper floor

of a shopping center to be constructed in the place in question, and that there is a public

interest in this regard was appropriate in principle with the decision of the Ministry of

Culture and Tourism, İstanbul Renovation Areas Cultural and Natural Heritage

Preservation Regional Board's no. 973 dated 09.10.2009” [28].

As seen in the above statement, the decision to demolish buildings that have been

registered historically instead of protecting them was opposed. After the project foreseeing the

demolition of Emek Cinema, cinema lovers, city advocates came together and established a

community called ‘İsyanbul Culture and Art Variety’. This community fought against the

demolition of Emek Cinema. The masses who argued that Emek Cinema belongs to the public

and constitute the social memories of the cinema have resisted to protect the cinema and the

city. The fight for Emek Cinema was also a fight to stand against gentrification, which was

carried out with urban transformation projects and structures that would spoil the texture of the

city. People who fought with the motto “Emek is ours, İstanbul is ours” emphasized that the

project that envisaged the demolition of Emek Cinema is part of the economy-political urban

transformation project:

From Tarlabaşı to Başıbüyük, from Fener-Balat-Ayvansaray to Liquor Factory, from

Galataport to Kartal, from Third Bridge to Dubai Towers, from Sulukule to Atatürk Cultural

Center, the benefits and rights of the people of the region evaporate, public needs are ignored

and public facilities are made offered to the “private”. The project of transforming Atatürk

Culture Center from a culture and art space into a business center, cleaning Sulukule, removing

the state, schools and hospitals in the city center for sale, removing the residents of Ayazma

and forcibly placing them in TOKİ buildings, and removing the Akaretler bus station in

Beşiktaş, just like the demolition of Emek Cinema and moving it to the top floor of the shopping

center to be built, are all the results of the same policy [29].

It is seen in the above statements that emphasis is on gentrification. It is possible to say

that Emek Cinema is also a part of the economic policy that implements urban transformation

for the demolition process because a shopping center has been built in place of the collapsed

111

Emek Cinema within the scope of the Law on Urban Transformation No. 5366, and shopping

centers have also increased as a result of neoliberalization policies.

Following the case filed by the Chamber of Architects against the decision of the board

approving the project for the demolition of Emek Cinema, the decision was made to stop the

project on the grounds that if the project is carried out on 12.05.2010, it may cause irreparable

or irreparable damages, and it was decided to conduct the necessary investigations by forming

a discovery and expert committee in the field [30].

The persons who were officially elected experts by the 9th Administrative Court of

İstanbul, were Assoc. Dr. Özlem Eren, Asst. Assoc. Dr. Suat Çakır and Asst. Assoc. Dr. Ömer

Şükrü Deniz. In the expert report, Assoc. Dr. Özlem Eren and Asst. Assoc. Dr. Ömer Şükrü

Deniz stated that the immovable property of the project in question is not compatible with the

historical and cultural texture of the region in which the real estate is determined as an urban

site, and is not in line with the historical and cultural texture of the region, which is suitable for

its intended use, and its cultural value and property, historical value, interior and exterior

appearance, and that it was not suitable for public interest. Suat Çakır, on the other hand, and

stated that the “Emek Cinema Hall was transferred to the most prestigious point of the project”

and found the demolition of Emek Cinema suitable. Only one out of the expert committee of

three persons did not see any disadvantage in the implementation of the project [30].

On the 8th of December 2011, although the 9th Administrative Court stated in the expert

report that the two people did not comply with the city law, they canceled the decision to stop

the project without any justification, and the dreary end where Emek Cinema will be

demolished became one step closer.

Despite the expert report, the cancellation of the decision to execute the project that will

demolish Emek Cinema shows that the legal principles were also violated. After the project,

which would demolish Emek Cinema, continued, city rights defenders, film lovers, people from

different professional groups continued to come together, organize various protests and

organize until the demolition. In this process, a blog named “Emek Cinema” was opened in

order to protect Emek Cinema and to be together by providing publicity, and this blog became

the voice of the masses who wanted to save Emek Cinema. The protests and videos taken in the

process that will result in the demolition of Emek Cinema are transferred to this blog daily.

When the blog opened with the name of Emek Cinema is examined, it is explained through the

issues of “urban transformation”, “public sphere” and “social memory” that Emek Cinema

112

should be protected. In the press release of the protest of 24 December 2011, the following

sentences stand out in order to read the issue through public sphere and social memory:

Emek is the space of our collective memory. Emek is the space for the May 1st

celebration, which was held after the 80 coups, as well as the films, dreams and festivals

watched there. For all these reasons, it is a fight to oppose the demolition of Emek

Cinema, to establish our day as much as to protect our past and to imagine a different

future. It is an effort to resist the cinemas stuck into shopping centers, against artistic

and cultural production that is commercialized and commodified, to take back the city

and urban spaces from the hands of capital and the government, to re-pronounce and

establish publicity [31].

As can be seen in the statements above, the citizens struggled to have a say in their social

spaces. Those who tried to prevent the demolition of Emek Cinema tried to protect their social

memories. They wanted to protect their past and common experiences against “the curse of

forgetting”, in the words of Huyssen. Those who fought for Emek Cinema wanted to create a

ground with an alternative public sphere potential and to be able to step together and be in the

public sphere circle altogether, even if they could not come together under an exact line of

public sphere.

The Emek Cinema Initiative called the masses to Yeşilçam Street under the name of

"Festival to take back Emek".

Figure 19. Emek Cinema Reserveal Festivals

As of May 1, 2011, groups who wanted to protect Emek Cinema would gather on

Yeşilçam Street every Sunday and would struggle to protect their public spheres and social

113

memories. Regarding this fight overflowing from the cinema hall to the streets, Elif Tan said

“The public sphere and the struggle for the right to the city, which started at the center of Emek

Cinema, overflowed to the street, another public sphere where the cinema was located. The

group did not refrain from repeating the publicity and the importance of public interest in every

new discourse it brought about” (Tan, 2016: 55).

As Elif Tan stated, the fight for Emek Cinema has been a struggle for public sphere and

social memory:

The screen of Emek Cinema is a screen of the street. It is the screen of the public, not

capital and government, and will continue to be so. That's why we take back Emek

Cinema and the Yeşilçam Street in which it is located as a street to be used for the

benefit of the public. Come on, let's do our own barter festival in Demirören, which was

opened to the Shopping Fest, although the last two storeys were illegal. Let's watch our

movies here, have our tea here. Let's turn this street into the center of cultural

production, not consumption. Let's accept the proposal of direct democracy’ of the

municipality and make Emek and its street, which we have lost unjustly and illegally,

as one of our sustainable living spaces! We insist, “Not only Labor, all streets, squares,

neighborhoods, all of İstanbul is ours!” We close Emek Cinema for those who want to

burn and those who want to demolish it. Emek is ours, İstanbul is ours! [32].

It is seen from the explanations of Emek Cinema Initiative, which initiated “festivals to

take back Emek” with the above text and turned Yeşilçam Street into a festival area, they are

against the reduction of cinema only to a part of consumption. In addition to this, Emek Cinema

is also one of the historical and cultural symbols of İstanbul. It is seen that the masses who want

to protect Emek Cinema are also against the deterioration of İstanbul's texture and the removal

of their social spaces. Emek Cinema Initiative also emphasized the importance of film festivals

and aimed to carry out film festivals on Yeşilçam street and transform this street into a social

and cultural area until it managed to do all this for a long time.

On Monday evening, March 11, 2013, a scaffolding was installed in the Cercle D'orient

building, where İnci Patisserie was evacuated a few months before this date. Beyoğlu

Municipality has licensed this project, but it should not have been licensed when the reports

and legal articles are considered. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism used the expressions

“We will not demolish but carry the Emek Cinema”, but the Emek Cinema Initiative stated that

it would not be preserved by moving the decorations of a historical place to the upper floors

throughout the process. The advocates of this fight said “Emek Cinema and Cercle D'orient

114

building belong to the Social Security Institution, that is to us, the public. All usage rights in

this area are public and collective. "It is the benefit and decision of the public, not the interests

of state institutions and companies, which are legitimate and essential in our view." On

Saturday, March 16, 2013, everyone was called to Yeşilçam Street [33].

Citizens who wanted to save Emek Cinema often met in Yeşilçam Street and performed

various actions, film shows, and held concerts. When it was learned that the demolition process

was started for Emek Cinema, a group of 50 people from the “Emek is ours, İstanbul is ours!”

Initiative was occupied Emek Cinema on the opening day of the İstanbul Film Festival on

March 31, 2013, and the İstanbul Film Festival was celebrated here. The group regarding this

protest called occupation, made the statement that “this place belongs to the public, we are

protecting our space, which is public and therefore ours”. Theater artist Defne Halman

addressed the group supporting them “Welcome to the opening of the İstanbul Film Festival.

We are very happy and excited this year because we are holding our opening at Emek Cinema.”

This occupation, which lasted about 2 hours, ended at 19.00 [34].

In the process that resulted in the demolition of Emek Cinema, the actions to prevent

demolition increased as the date of demolition of Emek Cinema approached. Police and riot

forces also responded to these actions with tear gas and water cannons. Emek Cinema was

completely demolished on 20 May 2013 despite all the fights [35].

Figure 20. Protests to protect Emek Cinema

Emek Cinema is a building that needs to be protected on site instead of being demolished

in terms of law. In this context, the demolition was a legally inappropriate demolition. The

Association of All Restorers and Conservators says that all universal protection principles and

cultural assets should be protected on-site, except for mandatory conditions, in Article 7 of the

115

Venice Regulation. According to this article, “a monument is an integral part of the history and

the environment in which it witnessed. Moving all or part of the monument to another location

should not be permitted unless the protection of the monument requires this, or where there are

significant national or international interests” [36].

The relevant article in the European Convention on the Protection of Architectural

Heritage is as follows: “It is forbidden to move all or part of a protected monument, except

when material conditions endanger it and it is imperative to move it elsewhere.” In this article,

it is seen that unless there is a problem that would endanger the public, or as a result of this, it

is not possible to move historical and cultural heritage places unless there is a critical situation

related to public interest. In the demolition of Emek Cinema, the demolition of a historical and

public sphere is in question regardless of any public interest. A cultural space was demolished

and a shopping center was built in its place.

After the demolition of Emek Cinema, “Emek is Ours, İstanbul is Ours Initiative” has

prepared a documentary called the Liberated Audience: Fight for the Emek Cinema (2016),

which, with a collective effort, describes their struggle with the videos and images in their

hands. This 48-minute documentary was first screened at the opening of the 8th Which Human

Rights? Film Festival in Şişli Municipality Cemil Candaş Kent Cultural Center [37].

In the documentary entitled Liberated Audience: Fight for the Emek Cinema (2016) the

following sentences explaining the reason of the labor struggle are remarkable:

It is a fight to oppose the demolition of Emek Cinema, to establish our day as much as

to protect our past and to imagine a different future. It is an effort to resist the cinemas

stuck into shopping centers, against artistic and cultural productions that are

commercialized and commodified, to take back the city and urban spaces from the hands

of capital and the government, to re-pronounce and establish publicity.

The expression “an effort to re-pronounce and establish publicity” in the above narrative

is quite striking. In today's cities, the people who do not have the right to speak on the city have

difficulties in reconstructing their publicity and the purpose of this resistance is to establish a

public sphere without the discourse of the dominant ideology or to envision having such a

public sphere.

Now there is Grand Pera Shopping Center in the place of Emek Cinema. Emek Cinema

was demolished and a replica called Emek Stage was created by adding various ceiling

decorations of the original Emek Cinema to the upper floor.

116

5.4 Evaluation

Emek Cinema has been one of the social spaces that have connected the generations

throughout history. Located in the historical conservation area, Emek Cinema is a cultural

heritage. For the study, people from different professions who were against the demolition of

Emek Cinema were interviewed, and the interviewed people said, "The existing laws were

protecting Emek Cinema, but the cinema was still demolished."

Despite all the opposition, the demolition of Emek Cinema under the guise of urban

transformation and the construction of a shopping center instead shows that a social space is

under control.

With the demolition of Emek Cinema, social memory has been condemned to be erased

and it has become more difficult to gather in a place where public discussions will be held for

the people living in the city. Emek Cinema was demolished, it was not saved, but the struggle

to save the cinema in a collective way went down in history.

117

6. CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION

Cities exist with the spaces that make up cities, and cities cannot be considered

independent of the spaces that make up cities. Cinema halls are one of the social spaces that

make up the cities. The cinema, which was born in the city in the 20th century, has been looking

for a screening place since its birth and the cinema had the opportunity to show itself in places

such as cafes and breweries in its early stages, and after its touring period, it got its settled

theaters

In this study, how the cinema halls transformed with the transformation of the cities was

examined in a holistic manner and the effect of the cinema's growing urban transformation as

part of neoliberal policies in Turkey were discussed with the concept of public sphere and

collective memory. In the first section of the study, the potential of cinema to create public

sphere is examined.

Does cinema have the ground to create an anti-proletarian public sphere? In her article,

Early Cinema: Whose Public Sphere (1990), Miriam Hansen discussed whether this first period

silent cinema in the United States could be considered as a public domain. Hansen emphasizes

that in the first 20 years of nickelodeons, they hosted people from different parts of the society,

including urban poor, working class, housewives, immigrants, and the early stage of silent

cinema has the potential for opposite public sphere. According to Hansen, since 1914, with the

films of Griffith, United Cinema of America tries to create an ideal bourgeois public sphere and

creates narrative hegemony. Cinema is no longer a classless sharing place where the working

class, the common voices of immigrants are heard, and focus on the bourgeoisie. Therefore, the

potential of cinema to create a proletarian/opposing public sphere is gradually disappearing

(Hansen, 1990: 229-230).

The opposing public sphere potential is being destroyed by many neoliberal policies

today with the suppression of social encounters, dissident, immigrant and working class voices.

The interventions made to the space serve for class changes and rent, as well as to eliminate the

ground for the formation of an opposing/proletarian public sphere in cities. Cinema is not only

able to create an opposed public sphere, but even the public sphere ground is lost due to the

social quality of cultural spaces. The monopoly established by the mainstream and Hollywood

production, distribution and display network, and the conversion of the display venues into

shopping centers can be considered parallel. It is very difficult to find movies outside the

mainstream and Hollywood in shopping centers, so the audience's mind is captured not only by

118

the dominant ideology, but by a uniform narrative language. In this context, shopping center

cinemas mentioned in the study cannot offer the grounds of thinking, discussion, to the audience

and the city, both spatially and with the films they offer, but the cinemas with doors opening to

the street, which cannot compete with neoliberal policies, are closed one by one.

Lefebvre refers to the social production of space by saying “social space is a social

product”. Lefebvre emphasizes that space is a political place and that the social space created

by social production is always attempted to be dominated by the power (2014: 56). Social space

also paves the way for the formation of social memory with layers of common experience. The

cinema halls mentioned in the study are the cinema halls where movie lovers in the city go for

years. The demolition of these cinema halls with neoliberal policies shows that, as Lefebvre's

discourses about space, social space is tried to be brought under control by the government and

destroys social memory. People who go to the cinema halls, with doors opening to the streets,

do not have memories of these places. The social memory built here is also part of the memory

that forms them. The demolition of these spaces also prevents people who come together and

connect with each other and cultural productions on the same spatial ground, leading to the loss

of social memory written in the space while preventing cultural collective sharing.

With the gentrification, destructive policies on social spaces have increased even more.

Saray Cinema, which was demolished to be Demirören Shopping Center, is an example of these

policies, and Şan and Pangaltı İnci Cinemas, which have turned into a shopping center, hotel

and residence, are examples of these policies and historical Emek Cinema, which was

demolished by the discourse of "not demolishing but moving," which no longer exists and

connects the generations, is an example of neoliberal disruptive policies. Maybe the loss of the

memory of the society, together with the destroyed spaces, destroys the potential to bring people

together, the understanding that any opposing ideas or alternative collective movements will

occur in the society.

The Emek resistance, which was examined in the last part of the study, is a city struggle

that the fighters carried out to envision an opposed public sphere and protect their social

memories. The people involved in the Emek resistance wanted to protect their social spaces that

would be destroyed under the guise of urban transformation against destructive policies. During

their struggles, insurgents have always emphasized the concepts of "social memory" and

"public sphere".

119

Emek Cinema belongs to the Social Security Institution and is therefore public. Emek

Cinema was rented to Kamer İnşaat in 1993 and was renewed in 2006 with the urban

transformation law. Emek Cinema, which was closed to use in 2009, was left idle until it was

destroyed in 2013. Cinema was worn out after it was left idle, and later groups advocating the

demolition of Emek Cinema said that the cinema was in poor physical and hygienic conditions.

It should be noted that many cinema halls or social spaces that were closed included in the study

were left idle for many years before they were demolished and were worn consciously.

Therefore, it is possible to say that this is a policy that prepares demolition.

The Emek resistance started the struggle to save Beyoğlu Cinema, which faced the risk

of closure, after the demolition of Emek Cinema. Beyoğlu Cinema Hall is actively kept alive

today with a collective solidarity after the Emek resistance. The effective use of Kadıköy

Cinema today is probably one of the cinema halls preferred by İstanbul residents to save a few

remaining cinema halls with doors opening to the street after the demolition of the cinema halls

and to experience different experiences. Emek resistance, closed down Alkazar Cinema and

many more closed down cinema halls encourage Istanbul residents to protect the cinema hall,

which is outside a few shopping centers, and which will give them different experiences. As

the demolition of spaces is a process carried out by neoliberal policies, it is difficult to say that

the remaining few cinema halls will not be demolished after a while or that these theaters will

continue to be used for many years.

The demolition of Emek Cinema can be accepted as one of the concrete examples that

the place is tried to be taken under control/domination by the government. Society did not want

its own cultural, collective and social spaces to be demolished, it struggled against the

demolition of space, but Emek Cinema was lost despite all these fights.

The struggle to protect Emek Cinema against demolition is important because it is a

collective struggle, which brought people from many parts of the society together. In the fight

to protect the cinema, film screenings and marches on İstiklal Street were held on Yeşilçam

street, the streets that enabled the society to establish more organic relations with the city,

witnessed this resistance. As a result of the struggle, the Emek Cinema was destroyed, but the

Emek resistance went down in history as a struggle to protect the city, an urban space, a social

and urban memory and to create a contradictory public sphere ground with the statement “Emek

is ours, İstanbul is ours”.

120

REFERENCE LIST

Akkar, M (2006). Kentsel Dönüşüm Üzerine Batı’daki Kavramlar, Tanımlar, Süreçler ve

Türkiye. Planlama. 29(2): 29-38.

Assmann, J. (2015). Kültürel Bellek. (Ayşe Tekin Trans). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.

Assmann, J. (2011). Communicative and Culturel Memory. P. Meusburger, M. Heffernan &

Wunder (eds.). Cultural Memories: The Geographical Point of View. (15-27). London:

Springer.

Atik, A., Erdoğan Bilginer, Ş. (2014). Toplumsal Bellek ve Medya. Atatürk İletişim Dergisi.

17(6), 1-16.

Bağımsız Filmlerin Mabedi (2018). Altyazı Dergisi. 184(188), 5-6.

Balaban, O. (2017). İnşaat Sektörü Neyin Lokomotifi, İnşaat Ya Resullullah. Tanıl Bora (edt.),

İstanbul: Birikim Kitapları.

Balaban, O. (2015). Neoliberal Yeniden Yapılanmanın Türkiye Kentleşmesine Bir Diğer

Armağanı: Kentsel Dönüşümde Güncelin Gerisinde Kalmak. Çavdar A. Pelin, T. (eds.),

İstanbul: Müstesna Şehrin İstisna Hali. İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.

Barash, A. J. (2007). Belleğin Kaynakları. Ş. Öztürk (edt.), Cogito Magazine. 96(50). 11-21.

İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Bauman, Z. (2014). Küreselleşme. (Abdullah Yılmaz Trans). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.

Budak, S. (2000). Psikoloji Sözlüğü. Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat.

Cevizci, A. (2005). Felsefe Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayıncılık.

Connerton, P. (2014). Toplumlar Nasıl Anımsar. (Alâeddin Şenel, Trans). İstanbul: Ayrıntı

Yayınları.

Connerton, P. (2014). Modernite Nasıl Unutturur? (Kübra Kelebekoğlu, Trans). İstanbul: Sel

Yayıncılık.

Çavdar, A., Tan, P. (2015). İstanbul: Müstesna Şehrin İstisna Hali. İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.

121

Çelen, P. (2010). Toplumsal Etkileşim Mekânı Olarak Sinemalar (Yüksek lisans tezi). İstanbul

Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.

Dorsay, A (1990). Benim Beyoğlum. İstanbul: Varlık Yayınları.

Düştegör, P. (2011). Sinema ve Sinema Mekânlarının Tarihsel Gelişimi ve İstanbul İlinde Yer

Alan Sinema Mekânlarının İncelenmesi: Alışveriş Merkezleri Üzerine Değerlendirme

Çalışması (Yüksek lisans tezi). Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.

Erkılıç, H. (2009). Düş Şatolarından Çoklu Salonlara Değişen Seyir Kültürü ve Sinema.

Kebikeç. 48(28). 143-162.

Erman, T. Öza, S. (2017). Bir Varmış Bir Yokmuş, Toplumsal Bellek ve Kimlik Üzerine

Araştırmalar. İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.

Esen, Ş. (2010). Türk Sinemasının Kilometre Taşları. İstanbul: Agora Kitaplığı.

Evren, B. (1998). Eski İstanbul Sinemaları, Düş Şatoları. İstanbul: Milliyet Yayınları.

Feigelson, K. (2014). Sinema ve Toplumsal Kırılmalar. (M. Öztürk Trans). N. Türkoğlu, M.

Öztürk ve G. Aymaz (eds.), Kentte Sinema Sinemada Kent. İstanbul: Pales Yayıncılık.

Gökmen, M. (1991). Başlangıçtan 1950’ye Kadar Türk Sinema Tarihi ve Eski İstanbul

Sinemaları. İstanbul: İstanbul Kitaplığı.

Göle, M. (2007). Doğru Olmadığını Biliyorum Ama Öyle Hatırlıyorum. Cogito Magazine.

96(50). 23-31. İstanbul. Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Habermas, Jürgen. (2017). Kamusallığın Yapısal Dönüşümü. (Tanıl Bora Trans.), Mithat

Sancar. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.

Halbwachs, M. (1992). On Collective Memory. (LA Coser Trans.). Chicago and London: The

University of Chicago Press.

Hansen M., (1990). Early Cinema: Whose Public Sphere? T. Elsaesser, A. Barker (eds.), Early

Cinema: Space Frame Narrative, London: BFI, s. 228-246.

Hansen, M. (1991). Babel & Babylon. Harvard University Press: Reprint Edition.

Harvey, D. (1989). The Condution of Postmodernity. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

Harvey, D. (2016). Sosyal Adalet ve Şehir. (Mehmet Boralı Trans.). İstanbul: Metis Yayıncılık.

122

Harvey, D. (2015) Neoliberalizmin Kısa Tarihi. (Aylin Onancak Trans.), İstanbul: Sel

Yayıncılık.

Harvey, David. Postmodernliğin Durumu (1997). (Sungur Savran Trans.), İstanbul: Metis

Yayınları.

Hasol, D. (1979). Ansiklopedik Mimarlık Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Yapı- Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları.

Hobsbawm, E. Ranger, T. (2006). Geleneğin İcadı. (Mehmet Murat Şahin Trans.). İstanbul:

Agora Kitaplığı.

Huyssen, A. (2003). Presents Pasts. Stanford and California: Stanford University Press.

Huyssen, A. (1999). Alacakaranlık Anıları. (Trans). Kemal Atakay. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.

Jeancolos, J. P. (2014). Sinema Salonunun Doğuşu ve Gelişimi. (Battal Odabaşı Trans.), N.

Türkoğlu, M. Öztürk, G. Aymaz. (edt). Kentte Sinema Sinemada Kent. İstanbul: Pales

Yayıncılık.

Kadıköy Sineması Yeniden (2018). Altyazı Dergisi. 188(182). 6.

Kavur, Ö. (1988). Devlet & Sinema / Avrupa Devlet ve Sinema TV Kurumları El Ele. 190. TV

ve Darbe ile Kapanan Sinema Salonları. 10-11.

Keleş, R. (1998) Kent Bilim Terimleri Sözlüğü. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.

Keleş, R. (2016). Kentleşme Politikası. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.

Kluge, A., Negt, O. (2018). Kamusallık ve Tecrübe. (Müge Atala Trans.), İstanbul: Nota Bene

Yayınları.

Kluge, A, Negt, O. (1993). Public Sphere and Experience. (Peter Labanyi, Jamie Owen Daniel,

Assenka Oksiloff Trans.), University of Minnesero Press. Vol. 85.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. (Donald Nicholson Smith Trans.), Blackwell

Pub. Oxford& Cambridge.

Lefebvre, H. (2014). Mekânın Üretimi. (Işık Ergüden Trans.). İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.

Liebman, S. (2004). Aleksander Kluge’yle Söyleşi: Yeni Alman Sineması, Sanat ve Aydınlanma

Üzerine. (Edt.). Meral Özbek. Kamusal Alan. İstanbul: Hill Yayın.

Marx, K. Engels, F. (2013). Alman İdeolojisi. (Tonguç Ok, Olcay Geridönmez Trans.). İstanbul:

Evrensel Basın Yayın.

123

Monaco, J. (2001). Bir Film Nasıl Okunur?. (Ertan Yılmaz Trans). İstanbul: Oğlak Yayınevi.

Morva, A. D. Bir Serbest Zaman Etkinliği Olarak Sinema. İstanbul Fakültesi İletişim Fakültesi

Hakemli Dergisi. (27). 113-124.

Nora, P. (2006). Hafıza Mekânları. (Mehmet E. Özcan Trans). Ankara: Dost Kitabevi.

Özbek. M (2004). Kamusal Alan. İstanbul: Hill Yayın.

Özön, N. (1985). Sinema Uygulayımı, Sanatı, Tarihi. İstanbul: Hill Yayın.

Penpecioğlu, M. (2017). Kapitalist Kentleşme Dinamiklerinin Türkiye’deki Son 10 Yılı. İnşaat

Ya Resullullah. Tanıl Bora. (edt.), İstanbul: Birikim Kitapları.

Savran, S. Kod Adı Küreselleşme. (2008). İstanbul: Yordam Kitap.

Scognamillo, G. (2008). Cadde-i Kebir’de Sinema. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.

Scognamillo, G. (1990). Bir Levantenin Beyoğlu Anıları. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.

Schudson, M. (2007). Kolektif Bellekte Çarpıtma Dinamikleri. Cogito Dergisi. (50). 23-31.

İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Sennet, R. (1999) Gözün Vicdanı. (Can Kurultay, Süha Sertabiboğlu Trans). İstanbul: Ayrıntı

Yayınları.

Sennet, R. (2002) Kamusal İnsanın Çöküşü. (Serpil Durak, Abdullah Yılmaz Trans). İstanbul:

Ayrıntı Yayınları.

Sennet, R. (2008). Ten ve Taş. (Tuncay Birkan Trans). İstanbul: Metis Yayıncılık.

Smith, N. (2002). “New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy”,

N. Brenner and N. Theodore (eds.), Newyork: City of University: Newyork Press.

doi/epdf/10.1111

Sorlin, P. (2014). Eğlence Tarihinde Sinema. (Battal Odabaşı Trans.). N. Türkoğlu, M. Öztürk,

G. Aymaz (eds). Kentte Sinema Sinemada Kent. İstanbul: Pales Yayıncılık.

Süalp, T, A. (1997). Sinemanın Kamusal Alanı ve Popüler Kültürle Karşılaştırması. 25. Kare.

31(20), 35-44.

Süalp, T, A. (2004). Kamusal Alan, Deneyim ve Kluge. Meral Özbek (edt). Kamusal Alan.

İstanbul: Hill Yayın.

124

Süalp, T, A. “Mişli Geçmişin Ülkesinde Kaf Dağinin Ardında: “Gerçek” (2013).Türk Film

Araştırmalarında Yeni Yönelimler. Sinema ve Hayal. 15(10). 303-315. İstanbul: Bağlam.

Süalp, T, A. (2008). Deneyimin Ufkunda Sinema. Özgürlüklerden Kayıplara ve Sonrası.. Tül

Akbal Süalp, Ayla Kanbur, Necla Algan (eds). Ankara: Ankara Sinema Derneği.

Pösteki, N. Sinema Salonlarının Dönüşümünde Bellek ve Mekân İlişkisi.

http://akademikpersonel.kocaeli.edu.tr/nposteki/bildiri/nposteki31.05.2013_00.54.44bildiri.pd

f Retrieved date: 30.03.2019

Tan, E. (2016). Tarihi Sinema Salonlarının Dönüşümü: Roma-İstanbul Karşılaştırması.

(Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi. Mimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı, İstanbul.

Tekeli, İ. (1993). Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi. İstanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve

Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı.

Weber, M. (2010). Şehir, Modern Kentin Oluşumu. (Musa Ceylan Trans). İstanbul: Yarın

Yayıncılık.

Yıpranan Tarihi ve Kültürel Taşınmaz Varlıkların Yenilenerek Korunması ve Yaşatılarak

Kullanılması Hakkında Kanun, 5/7/2005 Resmi Gazete. Sayı: 25866 Tertip: 5 Cilt: 44.

Afet Riski Altındaki Alanların Dönüştürülmesi Hakkında Kanun, 15/12/2012 Resmi Gazete.

Sayı: 28498.

Witherick, M., Ross, S., Small, J. (eds). (2001). A Modern Dictionary of Geography. (4nd. Ed.)

Newyork: Oxford University Press.

Internet Sources

[1] Öcal, L. (2011), Aklımızı Başımızdan Alan Film Festivalleri,

https://www.hayalperdesi.net/dosya/80-aklimizi-basimizdan-alan-film-festivalleri.aspx,

Retrieved date: 10.09.2019

[2] Atmaca, E. (2007), Taksim Sahnesi’ne Erken Veda,

http://www.radikal.com.tr/kultur/taksim-sahnesine-erken-veda-823548/, Retrieved date:

9.10.2019

[3] http://megaprojeleristanbul.com/print/majik-sinemasi-ve-maksim-gazinosu---otel-projesi,

Retrieved date: 9.10.2019

125

[4] http://www.milliyet.com.tr/alkazar-sinemasi-kapaniyor--kultur-1203805/ Retrieved date:

9.10.2019

[5] https://m.bianet.org/bianet/toplum/121838-yeni-ruya-sinemasi-kapandi-sinemaseverler-

eylemde Retrieved date: 11.10.2019

[6] http://www.mimarizm.com/makale/ahmet-misbah-demircan-bina-yillarca-pislik-icindeydi-

_114846?sourceId=114838, Retrieved date: 12.10.2019

[7] http://www.mimarizm.com/makale/2004-ten-bugune-tum-aktorleri-ve-surecleri-ile-

demiroren-avm_114841?sourceId=114838, Retrieved date: 13.10.2019

[8] https://t24.com.tr/haber/20-yildir-kapali-yeni-melek-sinemasi-yerine-kultur-merkezi-

yapilacak,275498, Retrieved date: 15.10.2019

[9] Sancılı, D., Bir Beyoğlu klasiği: Yeni Melek,

http://arsiv.sabah.com.tr/2004/03/17/cp/gnc108-20040314-102.html, Retrieved date:

16.10.2019

[10] Çapan, M. (2018), İstanbul Hafızasını Yitiriyor, https://t24.com.tr/haber/istanbul-

hafizasini-yitiriyor-san-ve-inci-sinemalarinin-yerine-yapilacak-avmler-tamamlanmak-

uzere,702813, Retrieved date: 20.10.2019

[11] https://emlakkulisi.com/taksime-150-milyon-euroluk-san-city-projesi-geliyor/16475,

Retrieved date: 20.10.2019

[12] https://www.arkitera.com/haber/san-tiyatrosunun-basina-gelenler-ve-gelecekler/5675/,

Retrieved date: 20.10.2019

[13] http://megaprojeleristanbul.com/print/san-city, Retrieved date: 21.10.2019

[14] Kayaer, J. M, Pangaltı İci Sineması, https://prezi.com/8s6_l6xt7tk0/pangalti-inci-

sinemasi, Retrieved date: 23.10.2019

[15] Güvemli, Ö. (2016), Tarihi İnci Sineması Yıkıldı,

https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2016/gundem/tarihi-inci-sinemasi-yikildi-sorusturmasi-2-yilda-

acildi-1073346, Retrieved date: 1.11.2019

[16] http://lotusnisantasi.com/lotus-nisantasi.php, Retrieved date: 05.11.2019

[17] http://www.beyogluatlas.com/atlas-inemasi, Retrieved date: 06.11.2019

126

[18] https://www.kadikoysinemasi.com/hakkimizda/ Retrieved date: 07.11.2019

[19] www.gazetekadikoy.com.tr/sehrin-kadikeyfi/kadikoy-sinemasi-yeniden-hayat-bulacak-

h11762.html, Retrieved date: 09.11.2019

[20] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev_ebzxOUwo, Retrieved date: 11.11.2019

[21] https://herkesicinmimarlik.org/calismalar/beyoglu-sinemasi, Retrieved date: 13.11.2019

[22] https://www.ntv.com.tr/galeri/sanat/beyoglu-sinemasi-kapaniyor-huzunlu-

veda,Ub6vGmsLIk6DxJJQ0jkrUA, Retrieved date: 13.11.2019

[23] https://www.birgun.net/haber/beyoglu-sinemasi-kapilarini-yeniden-acti-181741,

Retrieved date: 14.11.2019

[24] http://www.mimarist.org/calisma_raporlari/emek_sinemasi.pdf Retrieved date:

13.05.2019

[25] http://emeksinemasi.blogspot.com/2010/04/sinemasal-donusum-projesi-seyirlik.html

Retrieved date: 14.11.2019

[26] http://emeksinemasi.blogspot.com/2016/01/emek-bizim-istanbul-bizim.html Retrieved

date: 14.11.2019

[27] https://m.bianet.org/bianet/toplum/121589-icomos-emek-sinemasi-nin-tasinarak-

korunmasi-mumkun-degil, Retrieved date: 14.11.2019

[28] http://www.mimarist.org/calisma_raporlari/emek_sinemasi.pdf, Retrieved date:

14.11.2019

[29] http://emeksinemasi.blogspot.com/, Retrieved date: 14.11.2019

[30] http://www.mimarist.org/calisma_raporlari/emek_sinemasi.pdf Retrieved date:

13.05.2019

[31] http://emeksinemasi.blogspot.com/2011/12/24-aralk-eylemi-basn-acklamas-metni.html

Retrieved date: 15.11.2019

[32] http://emeksinemasi.blogspot.com/2011/04/,Retrieved date: 15.11.2019

[33] http://emeksinemasi.blogspot.com/2013/03, Retrieved date: 15.11.2019

127

[34] https://odatv.com/emek-sinemasi-isgal-edildi-0104131200.html, Retrieved date:

16.11.2019

[35] http://emeksinemasi.blogspot.com/2013/05, Retrieved date: 16.11.2019

[36] http://emeksinemasi.blogspot.com/2013/04, Retrieved date: 17.11.2019

[37] Özçelik, M. (2016), Özgürleşen Seyirci: Emek Sineması Mücadelesi” nin Türkiye’deki

İlk Gösterimi Yapıldı, https://medyascope.tv/2016/12/12/ozgurlesen-seyirci-emek-sinemasi-

mucadelesinin-turkiyedeki-ilk-gosterimi-yapildi, Retrieved date: 17.11.2019