Turkey holds a complicated place as a geographic and cultural bridge between Europe, Asia and the Middle East. The film In July and the Montesquieu Persian Letters both focus on Turkey and its unique role in the Western world. Unlike most of Europe, Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country. The Persian Letters, while written in the 18th century, are still very relevant in showcasing the differences between the two countries and cultures. In the letters, Usbek and Rica make comments about French society and in particular how they consume wine and other alcohol. The men are critical of this practice and think it is harmful to society.
This initial commentary from the 18th century outlines important points showcasing differences between Turkish (Muslim) and French (Christian) cultures. Tensions such as the alcohol issue show broad differences between Muslim and Christian cultures.
While there was mid 20th century and post 1989 hope for Turkey’s inclusion into European culture and Economic supranational organizations, little real progress has transpired. In the 21st century, great tensions between Turkey and the rest of Europe persist. Turkish President Erdogan has been heavily criticized by Western leaders for his governance style and suppression of free speech. Turkey has sought new alliances with non-western partners and any hope of close ties with the West seem slim.
The Turkey issue portrayed symbolizes bigger issues trying to blend European (Christian) culture with people who practice Islam. Perhaps the biggest assimilation-based issue in Europe has been the emergence of parallel societies in which Muslims live together (typically in ghettos) entirely apart from the “traditional” European society. These ghettos often suffer from extreme poverty and fail to help integrate Muslims into European culture.
Both the Persian Letters and In July illustrate the importance of travel and understanding foreign cultures. It is crucial that Christians and Muslims understand and accept each other’s cultures and differences. Without effort to understand, it will be impossible for the two to coexist peacefully and happily together.
I agree with Daniel that cultural and religious tensions are one of the main reasons why Turkey is often not viewed as “part of Europe,” but also that these differences have led to Turkey being seen as a culturally inferior country as well. Turkey is certainly wealthier than many Eastern European nations, but despite this, the idea of Europe isn’t only driven by monetary decisions although financial burdens are an increasingly important part of the national identity of Europeans, and thus Turkey isn’t being excluded for the EU on these grounds. It’s interesting to me that, one of the main cultural differences that Montesquieu chooses to critique the Turks for, is their religious practices of polygamy. Women’s rights have long been a topic of discussion, but Montesquieu truly attacks the polygamy of this culture as being a parallel for Asiatic despotism. The Turkish women seem to despise being part of said practice while having to outwardly project like they are in favor, just as the Montesquieu believes that Turks are forced to critique Western ideals of freedom, when perhaps there are parts of it that they appreciate. Moreover, Montesquieu’s satirical “Persian Letters” also leads to the conclusion that with this Asiatic despotism, in his view, comes a lack of creativity in science, art, and philosophy, which adds emphasis to the fact that Turkey is not only religiously and politically inferior, but also culturally inferior as well.
As Daniel mentioned, it certainly doesn’t do any favors to those who want to bring Turkey into the EU that Erodgan has increased sovereign power because it does bring back political tensions of citizens’ rights, which exacerbates the religious tensions that already seem to exist between Muslims and Christians in Europe. This religious and political division is certainly emphasized by the media, and although “In July” doesn’t seek to condemn Turkey, it certainly critiques the more familial cultural duties that they may uphold than other Western European nations, such as when the police allow Isa to leave from jail, despite bringing a dead body into the country.
Within the European Union, borders seem almost non-existent. Citizens of the Union can cross into neighboring countries that are also within the Union with such ease that it is easy to forget that they are in fact crossing an international border. The film In July deals with the idea of borders and challenges the European Union idea that borders are non-existent.
In July shows the fact that members of the EU have this idea that traveling across borders comes as a kind of given. July lets the first person to pick her up while hitchhiking to decide where she goes next, without even questioning if crossing the border would be an issue. Daniel, when mapping the route to Turkey, talks about crossing through countries as if their borders did not even exist. This belief, however, is challenged when Daniel gets to the Romanian border, without a passport, and is not allowed into the country. He attempts to convince the border patrolman to let him into the country, but ultimately had to feign a marriage to July in order to be able to cross.
Turkey is not a part of the European Union. There is significant tension between Turkey and Europe in terms of cultural differences, which often leading to thoughts of inferiority towards the Turks. Many of these differences are noted in Montesquieu’s Persian Letters, especially in Letter 19, where Usbek writes to his friend Rustan about his journey through Turkey, “These barbarians have abandoned all the arts, even that of war. While the nations of Europe become more refined every day, these people remain in a state of primitive ignorance; and rarely think of employing new inventions in war, until they have been used against them a thousand times.” This reflects a common idea that Turkey is inferior to the rest of the European Union, despite, as Kimberly stated, it being wealthier than many of the Eastern European countries that are a part of the EU. What stands between Turkey and EU nations are cultural and religious differences. But yet, In July makes it seem so easy for Germans like Daniel and July to cross the border into Turkey for the sake of finding romance, but restricting borders do not always need to be physical.
I agree with Daniel that In July and the Persian Letters show the importance of traveling and understanding different cultures. In July portrays the ease of traveling, but the Persian Letters show that cultural differences are the true borders. Physical borders are no comparison to the cultural borders that are separating these nations.
Borders are a most complicated theme throughout In July—while at some points they seem highly constrictive, at other points, it is as if they do not exist. July makes it clear early on in the film that in her eyes, without traveling, seeing the world, and moving past borders, one is dull, unenlightened, and unknowledgeable. In this way, she portrays country borders as boundaries between people and potential new, illuminating experiences, constraining peoples’ characters if they are unable to pass them. Segments from The Persian Letters seem to echo this sentiment, specifically from Letter 1: “Although born in a prosperous realm, we did not believe that its boundaries should limit our knowledge.”
Though towards the beginning of Daniel and July’s trip, it seems rather easy to pass geographical borders into new countries in the EU, as the two travelers continue to move further south, border control into new countries grows increasingly strict. While this phenomenon throughout the film emphasizes the obvious physical constraints of the country borders, they also represent constraints of cultural understanding. For example, the more south Daniel moves, the more intolerant and hostile the border patrol officers act towards him after discovering he is German. This becomes most clear in Turkey, when the patrol officer automatically assumes him and Isa are terrorists or satanists, refusing to believe that Daniel truly had his passport stolen and sending him and Isa to jail.
While the jail in Turkey represents the most literal sense of strict borders, the interaction that unfolds between Daniel and Isa represents a complete collapse of metaphorical borders. Despite the bars they are trapped behind, Isa completely opens up to Daniel about his family, and the two begin to share a deep personal connection. More generally, throughout the film, it seems that there are automatically no personal barriers between road travelers, given the decision by so many drivers to pick Daniel up and allow him to travel with them, seeming very willing to help him to his destination. They even seem to delve into a level of comfort with each other that would be difficult to reach with any random stranger. The caveat here is that besides Isa, the only other German in the movie, each of these drivers that Daniel lets his guard down around ends up being untrustworthy. Specifically, Leo’s sexual assault of July and Luna’s decision to drug Daniel and steal his belongings.
Perhaps In July ultimately functions as a warning to viewers regarding the EU. Indeed the film acknowledges the benefits that come with these European countries being connected, such as the importance of experiencing other cultures, travel, and political/economic connection. Yet, it also warns that the defined connection between countries via the government does not automatically lead to strong, safe, and respectful connections between the citizens of these different countries. After all, it is no coincidence that the producers chose for Daniel to get along solely with Isa and July—the only other Germans he interacted with—throughout his trip.
The director of “Edge of Heaven” has deep understanding of the complex social fiber of Turkish society. He portrays a broad range of social dynamics, such as that between men and women, Turks and Kurds, and the secular and the Islamist. The director is clearly someone with socially progressive views, and his goal is likely to critique the prevalence of misogyny, Islamism/Nationalism, and the brutal treatment of Kurds. I’ll be focusing on his depiction of Islamism in German-Turkish culture, since it’s more relevant to the present time.
We witness a bizarre scene in the intro when the dynamic between Ali and Yeter changes as soon as he realizes the prostitute is Turkish. As Ali leaves the prostitutes room, two Turkish young adults overhear him speaking Turkish. They realize also that the prostitute is Turkish. As soon as I saw their reaction, I knew it spelled trouble for Yeter. I felt distrustful of these Turks because I have an understanding that Turks in Germany are significantly more conservative than the ones in Turkey, and that’s speaking a lot because Turkey’s culture has been completely dominated by with Islamist conservative ideologies. For instance, when I saw Turks in Berlin over this winter break, I often found myself asking in my head “Are these Erdogan supporters?”
Then we see the bus scene, where those same two Turks harass Yeter and tell her to “repent.” Expectedly, they’re exactly the Erdogan-supporter types.
To draw a comparison to our political climate, we can think of Erdogan supporters like Trump supporters. But more specifically, like evangelist-type of Trump supporters. They’re not only nationalist, but also religiously fundamentalist.
As a side note, it’s interesting that level of evolution denialism in Turkey is highest in the world, and US has second highest. This correlation between proportion of fundamentalists in the population very much correlates with evolution denialism. In Turkey, this was a trend that started in the 1980’s after a military coup where the state decided to promote Islamism for the purpose of national unity. To be clear though, the fundamentalist dogma pervasive in Turkish society roots back to the early 1900’s during the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Turkey’s social order is completely different in the present day than it was in 2007, when this film was made. Everyone is super tense about doing anything that would offend Erdogan or the ruling party, as doing so means that you might be labeled a Gulenist and thrown in jail on charges of working for a terrorist organization. Although this film was made much before Islamism became the dominant social order, the director had the foresight of focusing on its existence.
While I agree with Talha that the movie did focus heavily on the differences between German and Turkish people and their cultures, I also thought that there were a few interesting scenes that showed the unity and commonalities between the two. For example, when Nejat and Charlotte’s mom are speaking about them both knowing the Tale of Abraham and Isaac, it’s the first real similarity shown in the film. This shared piece of religion among the multitude of differences depicted between the two cultures showed an optimistic ray of light for integration between them. The scene with the caskets being shipped the same way from German to Turkey and vice versa, showed another connection between the two differing cultures, showing that at the end everyone is the same.
The promise of admission into the EU was continually thrown out as a solution throughout this film. The first was between Charlotte’s mom and Ayten in the kitchen when discussing the social unrest in Turkey. This scene showed both the optimistic and pessimistic views of Turkey joining the EU. The other was used almost ironically used, when the German officials quoted that because Turkey was going to join the EU Ayten was not granted political asylum because she would be safe in her return. Immediate after this scene we see Ayten in jail for being part of a political revolutionary group. Obviously, Turkey, even though portrayed as basically joining the EU, still hadn’t changed its policies entirely. This showed that joining the EU was not a solution that could apply to everything and this also served the strengthen the divide between the two countries. While portraying a hope that the two cultures could come together, it also highlighted their differences; the same differences that were portrayed in the Persian Letters and have existed for many centuries.
I would like to focus this post on the interwoven, yet never realized, story lines of “The Edge of Heaven” and what that seems to implicate about Turkey’s entrance into the EU. Throughout the movie, we see Nejat in his pursuit to find Aytan, and how despite that their paths have already crossed, it is merely a lack of knowledge about each other that keeps them separate. Initially, I thought it was merely the director emphasizing the difficulty of trying to find someone when you know so little about them, yet I was struck by how Nejat, even though he is persistent in his pursuit of Aytan, only focuses on the external aspect of how to find her. Despite that Yeter told him that Aytan is studying in university, he doesn’t appear to make any effort to go beyond surface level images, such as a photo of Yeter, and do a more thorough analysis of where Aytan might be found. Even in the end of the movie, the spectator can assume that when Nejat returns from visiting, he will never know Aytan’s true identity as Yeter’s daughter as he has decided to intentionally forget about Yeter in his plans to forgive his father.
This, perhaps, parallels the nature of Turkey and the EU’s relationship. Just as Nejat wants to help Ayten, but can’t as he knows so little about her, so to does the EU want to help Turkey, but can’t do to a lack of understanding of their political and cultural tendencies. What starts off as a good intention for Nejat due to a distant tie to Yeter is forgotten over the course of a year as more pressing matters consume him, such as his father’s release back into Turkey. Similarly, the EU, from 2006-2009, considered allowing Turkey to enter the EU, but as many Member States vetoed Turkey’s application, the good intention of helping Turkey enter was lost. Instead, the EU has become much more internally focused, as Nejat becomes with his father, and chooses to look into monitoring its own affairs instead of expanding. “The Edge of Heaven,” in essence, through its lack of complete integration with its plot line, is Akin’s belief of what will happen between Turkey and the EU: they will likely never become one although they will constantly intersect due to migration. Turkey is perhaps seen as too different by the EU, and it is likely a lack of constant pursuit and understanding that ultimately separates the two entities.
Fatih Akin emphasizes, illustrates, and discusses the physical and cultural borders effectively in both In July and The Edge of Heaven.
As discussed in class, it is convenient and simple to imagine borders as homogenous. When entering a country through airports, we go through a passport control and a potential security check. However, we seem to forget that the airport borders act differently than the actual borders between countries. These actual borders may differ in requirements and level of security when entering a new country, as portrayed by Akin. For instance, in In July, the border crossings during the road trip vary significantly, which is further underlined when Daniel loses his passport. With a German passport, driving through countries in Europe is effortless, almost as if the borders do not exist. This is implicitly emphasized in the scene where Daniel discusses the travel route with July. However, upon losing his passport, Daniel encounters a challenge at seemingly every border. At the border between Hungary and Romania, Daniel bribes one of the guards and marries July in order to gain entrance. Between Romania and Bulgaria, the pair row across a river undetected. Finally, at the border entrance to Turkey, Daniel is arrested. The latter part of the journey involving the crossings therefore exemplify that border security lies on a spectrum, and borders can be perceived as liquid.
Borders are also of emphasized in The Edge of Heaven, where the journey from Germany to Turkey also takes place. However, I believe that cultural borders are more of an importance in The Edge of Heaven, especially through Ayten, Lotte, and Susanne. Susanne, a conservative German mother, judges her daughter Lotte for helping the Turkish immigrant Ayten. This judgement transitions to understanding and support, as Susanne ultimately travels to Turkey to fight for the freedom of Ayten. There she meets Nejat and realizes that they both share a connection to the story of Abraham’s sacrifice. Thus, Akin shows that cultural borders are perhaps liquid as well.
In conclusion, Fatih Akin goes beyond the initial thoughts and prejudice we may have about physical and cultural borders in the two films, and portrays how people are more alike and united than we often believe.
I agree that borders is a central theme in the two works by Fatih Akin. As we talked about in class, In July had many physical and symbolic representations of borders throughout the film. What stood out to me in Edge of Heaven however was not just the borders separating Germany and Turkey, but the objectification of Turkey. One of the early scenes of the film depicted Ali walking down the street and looking at the prostitutes. While he passed by many of the women who were out in the open and readily available, he ended up taking an interest in Yeter. Whereas all the other women were outside in plain sight, she was partially closed off in a small window, a minor border separating her from Ali. This was the first mention of Turkey, in this scene represented by a prostitute who can be bought and possibly objectified. Ali, representing Germany, and by extension, the other European Union countries, takes this idea to the extreme, becoming possessive of her, paranoid of losing her, and believing that because he has paid her that he is entitled to treat her as an object.
I think that this imagery of the European Union engulfing Turkey arose once again in a later scene when Susanne is talking to Ayten at the dining table. Ayten talks about how she does not trust the EU, evoking the scene where her mother trusts Ali and is ultimately killed for it. Later on we see another scene where it is explained that Turkey is indeed seeking entry into the EU, raising questions about the future of Turkey. I think that this waiting is conveyed in the end of the movie, where Nejat is left to wait for his father and Susanne and Ayten decide to stay in Turkey for an unknown amount of time. Tensions regarding Turkey certainly remain high, and the future is ambiguous.
Despite sharing the same director, The Edge of Heaven offers a somber and stark contrast to In July by showcasing the growing complexity in Europe and Turkey’s relationship, as well as the growing complexity when it comes to defining a strict European or Turkish identity on both personal and national/international levels.
A much more clear-cut division between Germany and Turkey is visible in In July. Looking a map, it is easy to tell that Hamburg is point A, and Istanbul, point B. The long road and extensive journey that Daniel undertakes highlight the in-between—the visible distance and separation between Germany and Turkey. And yet, in The Edge of Heaven, this distance is closed, the journey becomes less visible, and interaction and collisions on the ground by people belonging to both states are highlighted. Rather than showcasing a linear journey like Daniel and July’s, from a starting point to a destination, The Edge of Heaven features Nejat going to Istanbul, Ayten fleeing to Germany, Ayten’s deportation back to Turkey, Lotte following Ayten to Turkey, Lotte’s coffin returning to Germany, and Susanne’s arrival in Istanbul, all within the span of less than two hours.
For hundreds of years throughout history, Turkey has often been defined as Europe’s “Other” because of its religion. The Edge of Heaven, however, convolves the Turkish and German identity, questioning the distinction between the two. This is best exemplified in the exchange between Nejat and the owner of the bookstore, when the bookshop owner summarized Nejat’s identity as a “Turkish professor of German from Germany,” who ended up “in a German bookshop in Turkey.” This intersection of identity is especially relevant, considering that, since the Gastarbeiter began to arrive in Germany in the 1960s and 70s, now, there is a second generation of Turkish people in Germany like Nejat who grow up having to straddle both their Turkish and German identity.
Throughout the movie, we see both Turks, Germans, and Turkish-Germans wrangle with their identities and what it means to be either or both Turkish and German. Yet, on a bigger scale, the movie also explores the way through which Turkey and Europe wrangle with their identities on a national and international scale as well. This is most visible in the scene when the decision to deport Ayten was made. Here, the officials cited, “In light of Turkey’s plans for membership in the EU,” it can “no longer be assumed” that Ayden must fear “physical maltreatment”, “torture,” or restriction to her freedom upon returning to Turkey; thus, her appeal for asylum in Germany cannot be granted. In other words, despite many Europeans’ historical and persisting idea of Turkey as antagonistic to Europe itself, because of Turkey’s plans to join the EU, this perspective is being re-negotiated, perhaps unwillingly. With the political climate of Turkey in 2007, which was ripen with tension between the secular military and a presidential candidate and party with Islamic roots, coupled with Turkey’s continued difficulties in its bid to join the EU, Turkey and Europe were constantly redefining their relation and perspectives on one another and on their own identities. These become powerful and apparent conflicts explored in The Edge of Heaven, and remain this negotiation and re-negotiation of Europe and its Other remains relevant today.
The film, “The Edge of Heaven” felt like an opposite tale from “In July.” I say this because both films relied on coincidence in almost completely different ways. “In July” is a series of coincidences bringing about love. Whereas “The Edge of Heaven” is a series of so-close to perfect meetings that weren’t meant to be leading to death and grief, though some good does still come out in the end. There is a substantially more serious tone to “The Edge of Heaven” contrasting the lighthearted “In July.”
One of the more political scenes of The Edge of Heaven occurs after Lotte is killed and the cops tell Ayten that Germany is breathing down their neck looking for answers, so they need Ayten’s cooperation. This is revealing of the dynamic in Turkey at the time, which was seeking entry into the European Union. There is still a tension in Turkey about even joining Turkey as evidenced by Ayten’s argument with Lotte’s mother in which Ayten claims not to trust the European Union. It is interesting how Lotte’s mother seems to think Turkey joining the EU would fix Turkey’s ailments.
A lot of characters in the film seem to be chasing after what they can’t find or deeply committed to some cause only to realize they don’t give a damn. Nejat’s father wants to cure his loneliness, so he pursues Yeter, yet that doesn’t fill the void that is existence and he continues drinking his life away even after Yeter moves in. Worse yet, he gets so caught up in worry that his son is sleeping with her that he can’t even enjoy her presence. And then he kills her. So he was pretty unsuccessful in that regard. Nejat moves to Istanbul to find Yeter’s daughter only to fail and realize he likes going on joyrides in Turkey and owning a wee bookshop. Ayten is so committed to her resistance movement until she suddenly isn’t and turns on them to get out of prison. Lotte is committed to Ayten until she isn’t cause she’s dead. And poor Loote’s mother is committed to stability? Until her daughter dies and she decides to radically change her life and move to Istanbul and adopt Loote’s aim of helping Ayten. Anyway, seemingly everyone has goals in this movie that start out very different form where they end up or that end in tragedy such as Lotte’s death. Maybe this is related to Turkey’s ascension to the EU. I don’t really know, but food for thought maybe. Also feeds into how coincidences almost bring everything into alignment so that Yeter meets Ayten, or Ayten meets Nejet, but just barely not quite. Similarly, so many characters seek what they seemingly won’t achieve for the most part, yet a few of them find meaning in unexpected places despite the many failures and tragedies along the way. This cycle of rediscovery of identity and meaning in life is intriguing. Nejet finds himself more suited to running a bookshop in Istanbul than being a German professor. Loote’s mother rediscovers her inner hippie after Loote’ death. Even Nejet’s father seems to find some solace in Turkey where he takes up fishing. Sorry for the rambling paragraph!
Anyway, the identities of these characters appear in flux at times similar to Turkey’s identity. That seems perhaps intentional.
The films, Im Juli and The Edge of Heaven, by Fatih Akin exhibit similarities and differences, especially regarding the way trust is explored in relation to the European Union and its influence compared on the characters compared with that of Turkey. It is first notable that German characters in both films who appear to have little to no negative feelings toward the EU have an inherent trust of its processes and ability to maintain safety and justice. In Edge of Heaven, Lotte’s mother strongly exudes this notion when she refuses to hear arguments from Ayten against the union, and does not appreciate her anti-globalization and anti-Northern European sentiments. There is a hint of this same idea layered in Im Juli when Daniel explains that he would prefer to travel through Italy and take the ferry to Turkey rather than travel through nations which, at the time the movie was filmed in 2000, were only just applying to become part of the European Union. Here, his inherent trust of the Union and potential distrust of “the other” is partially exposed. This notion goes hand-in-hand with Ayten’s distrust of the EU in Edge of Heaven as a group of colonial powers pushing for ideologies that the Turks do not agree with. A lesser but still notable amount of uneasiness and distrust is felt by Isa, a Turk, in Im Juli which in turn causes him to take his uncle’s corpse back to Turkey rather than risk facing distrust and punishment by German authorities.
The two films have both obvious and subtle differences in mood. The optimism in Im Juli can be seen ultimately as a function of the film’s resolution – the positive outcome of the four characters coming to an end of their journeys creates a happy ending. Oppositely in Edge of Heaven, both Lotte and Nejat’s Papa are going back to their country of origin in worse condition than before; dead and imprisoned then deported. Lotte’s mother is in mourning, Ayten in also mourning and no closer to revolution. These events and lack of ‘happy ending’ result in a darker mood.
A subtler difference in the films relates to the understanding of borders and a comparison of the European Union to ‘its other’. In Im Juli, Isa tells the truth about his journey and Uncle’s body to the Turkish border security. They let him through, signaling their trust of him and the representation of Turkey as a place of sanctuary and resolution. This contains within it a point of irony, wherein the EU is the space which is looking to be escaped from in favor of ‘the other’. Similarly for Daniel, Turkey represents a place of love and full-circle symbolic, astrological, and literal conclusion. The Edge of Heaven has a more nuanced image of the two spaces, as Germany represents a place of security for characters who are non-Turkish citizens, while it represents a place of betrayal and disgust for both Ayten and Nejat, respectively. However on the other hand, Turkey is equally mixed, as it is in general described as a place of violence and unrest in general, but also of resolution for Lotte’s mother and Nejat.
These films, if made in 2018, would not contain the same tensions as are portrayed in the plots through color imagery – the red, yellow, and blue of Edge of Heaven, and opposing darkness and sunshine in Im Juli – as well as dialogue and representation of border crossings. These tensions would be lessened, and stakes decreased, indicating that the spreading union would act as a pacifier in some respects, and an agent of further unrest and confusion in others.
In the opening scene of In July, there is a solar eclipse. At first, I found it very odd that the movie opened with some strange man (with a body in his trunk) staring up at a solar eclipse, but then we met Daniel and heard his story. We then see the solar eclipse scene from his point of view, and then it made a lot more sense. In astrology, a solar eclipse means a new beginning is coming. It is a time of self-reflection and finding oneself, discovering who you want to be. The significance and symbolism of the solar eclipse are reoccurring narrative motifs throughout different parts of the movie.
In the beginning, it is foreshadowing of what is to come, the solar eclipse coupled with the notion of a road movie lets the viewer know that it will be a movie that narratively is about self-discovery. Once as Daniel retells his journey that includes bar fights to defend a woman’s honor, getting high for the first time, having his possessions stolen, and falling in love, the viewer sees him transform from a rigid and controlled person to a fun and free man. Through that transformation, he loses parts of himself, chief of which were his glasses and his watch, reflecting his formation into a new person. Once the viewer is beginning to see his transformation, we see the scene with the solar eclipse through his perspective, and its inclusion becomes a lot clearer. He was starting his new beginning. This even includes more than his personality changes; it also includes the new path he is taking on his search for love. He is no longer searching for Melek (though how awkward would that have been if he was to interrupt the date between Melek and İsa), but instead he will be under the bridge over the Bosporus waiting for Juli.
In both the films by Fatih Akin, borders and separation between peoples are emphasized, especially between Turkey and other European nations. This separation is not merely physical, as the cultural differences between Europeans tend to formulate their opinions in both In July and The Edge of Heaven.
Borders, in these films, are represented both directly and symbolically. In In July, Daniel is faced with many borders on his journey. From Having to bribe officials, to literally crossing a river, Daniel has a difficult time traveling across Europe without his passport, despite it usually not being a problem for most German citizens. Finally, his arrest at the Turkish border fully displays this separation. Throughout European history, Turkey has always been somewhat ostracized because it is an Islamic nation. While the majority of Europe is Christian, the Turkish have been seen as the “other” for a while. This signifies that despite the formation of a European Union, there are still problems in uniting Europe and in the Maastricht Treaty’s execution, as Turkey still struggles to enter the union.
Moreover, in Edge of Heaven, the separation of cultures is even more emphasized. Often times characters are ashamed of their nationality or religion. They battle with who they are and often times put a facade on for others to see. For example, in the beginning scene when Ali seeks a prostitute, he suspects she is Turkish. However, at first she is ashamed to admit this fact and goes by the name of Jesse. There are moments of intertwining of cultures as well. The Turkish/German professor of German is a prime example of such mix. While this combination seems peculiar, his character serves as a bridge between the two cultures. As the storyline progressed, the movement of characters from one nation to another displays the challenges they face when in a foreign nation with a foreign culture.
In both films the disparity between mainstream Europe and its “other” are on full display. Cultures and borders separate them and often times result in terrible outcomes. The EU was designed to prevent this, but if certain nations cannot get a bid, it defeats the purpose and goal of the EU to create a balanced Europe.
I found it interesting that both The Edge of Heaven and In July were directed by the same director. Both deal with similar themes – borders, national/cultural identity and language/communication, and are similar in that they are “road films” depicting journeys between Turkey and Germany. In July is a lighter film and comes across as optimistic in the context of what we have been talking about in class, whereas The Edge of Heaven struck me as dark, negative and pessimistic about some of the topics we have been discussing. However, I do want to focus on one observation I made that was puzzling to me pertaining to borders/geographic location specifically.
In the beginning of The Edge of Heaven I was having trouble discerning whether or not the film was presently taking place in Germany or in Turkey. I think that this was intentional on Akin’s part, as he country. He juxtaposes characters of German and Turkish nationalities, sometimes showing them speak German and other times showing them speak Turkish. Having only Turkish/Middle Eastern sounding music for this part of the film (and the rest of the film for that matter) contributes to the uncertainty about the setting. In comparison, in In July it was abundantly clear when the characters were in Germany and when they were in Turkey.
I found this interesting because in a more optimistic film like In July one might expect there to be uncertainty about where setting is, symbolic of people of different national identities overcoming borders and coexisting, and in a pessimistic, more negative film like The Edge of Heaven one might expect it to be very clear about where the film is taking place, symbolic of the insurmountability of both borders and differences in national and cultural identities.
I am not sure why Akin made these decisions regarding clarity of setting in his films and am very curious to hear what you all think.
Turkey holds a complicated place as a geographic and cultural bridge between Europe, Asia and the Middle East. The film In July and the Montesquieu Persian Letters both focus on Turkey and its unique role in the Western world. Unlike most of Europe, Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country. The Persian Letters, while written in the 18th century, are still very relevant in showcasing the differences between the two countries and cultures. In the letters, Usbek and Rica make comments about French society and in particular how they consume wine and other alcohol. The men are critical of this practice and think it is harmful to society.
This initial commentary from the 18th century outlines important points showcasing differences between Turkish (Muslim) and French (Christian) cultures. Tensions such as the alcohol issue show broad differences between Muslim and Christian cultures.
While there was mid 20th century and post 1989 hope for Turkey’s inclusion into European culture and Economic supranational organizations, little real progress has transpired. In the 21st century, great tensions between Turkey and the rest of Europe persist. Turkish President Erdogan has been heavily criticized by Western leaders for his governance style and suppression of free speech. Turkey has sought new alliances with non-western partners and any hope of close ties with the West seem slim.
The Turkey issue portrayed symbolizes bigger issues trying to blend European (Christian) culture with people who practice Islam. Perhaps the biggest assimilation-based issue in Europe has been the emergence of parallel societies in which Muslims live together (typically in ghettos) entirely apart from the “traditional” European society. These ghettos often suffer from extreme poverty and fail to help integrate Muslims into European culture.
Both the Persian Letters and In July illustrate the importance of travel and understanding foreign cultures. It is crucial that Christians and Muslims understand and accept each other’s cultures and differences. Without effort to understand, it will be impossible for the two to coexist peacefully and happily together.
I agree with Daniel that cultural and religious tensions are one of the main reasons why Turkey is often not viewed as “part of Europe,” but also that these differences have led to Turkey being seen as a culturally inferior country as well. Turkey is certainly wealthier than many Eastern European nations, but despite this, the idea of Europe isn’t only driven by monetary decisions although financial burdens are an increasingly important part of the national identity of Europeans, and thus Turkey isn’t being excluded for the EU on these grounds. It’s interesting to me that, one of the main cultural differences that Montesquieu chooses to critique the Turks for, is their religious practices of polygamy. Women’s rights have long been a topic of discussion, but Montesquieu truly attacks the polygamy of this culture as being a parallel for Asiatic despotism. The Turkish women seem to despise being part of said practice while having to outwardly project like they are in favor, just as the Montesquieu believes that Turks are forced to critique Western ideals of freedom, when perhaps there are parts of it that they appreciate. Moreover, Montesquieu’s satirical “Persian Letters” also leads to the conclusion that with this Asiatic despotism, in his view, comes a lack of creativity in science, art, and philosophy, which adds emphasis to the fact that Turkey is not only religiously and politically inferior, but also culturally inferior as well.
As Daniel mentioned, it certainly doesn’t do any favors to those who want to bring Turkey into the EU that Erodgan has increased sovereign power because it does bring back political tensions of citizens’ rights, which exacerbates the religious tensions that already seem to exist between Muslims and Christians in Europe. This religious and political division is certainly emphasized by the media, and although “In July” doesn’t seek to condemn Turkey, it certainly critiques the more familial cultural duties that they may uphold than other Western European nations, such as when the police allow Isa to leave from jail, despite bringing a dead body into the country.
Within the European Union, borders seem almost non-existent. Citizens of the Union can cross into neighboring countries that are also within the Union with such ease that it is easy to forget that they are in fact crossing an international border. The film In July deals with the idea of borders and challenges the European Union idea that borders are non-existent.
In July shows the fact that members of the EU have this idea that traveling across borders comes as a kind of given. July lets the first person to pick her up while hitchhiking to decide where she goes next, without even questioning if crossing the border would be an issue. Daniel, when mapping the route to Turkey, talks about crossing through countries as if their borders did not even exist. This belief, however, is challenged when Daniel gets to the Romanian border, without a passport, and is not allowed into the country. He attempts to convince the border patrolman to let him into the country, but ultimately had to feign a marriage to July in order to be able to cross.
Turkey is not a part of the European Union. There is significant tension between Turkey and Europe in terms of cultural differences, which often leading to thoughts of inferiority towards the Turks. Many of these differences are noted in Montesquieu’s Persian Letters, especially in Letter 19, where Usbek writes to his friend Rustan about his journey through Turkey, “These barbarians have abandoned all the arts, even that of war. While the nations of Europe become more refined every day, these people remain in a state of primitive ignorance; and rarely think of employing new inventions in war, until they have been used against them a thousand times.” This reflects a common idea that Turkey is inferior to the rest of the European Union, despite, as Kimberly stated, it being wealthier than many of the Eastern European countries that are a part of the EU. What stands between Turkey and EU nations are cultural and religious differences. But yet, In July makes it seem so easy for Germans like Daniel and July to cross the border into Turkey for the sake of finding romance, but restricting borders do not always need to be physical.
I agree with Daniel that In July and the Persian Letters show the importance of traveling and understanding different cultures. In July portrays the ease of traveling, but the Persian Letters show that cultural differences are the true borders. Physical borders are no comparison to the cultural borders that are separating these nations.
Borders are a most complicated theme throughout In July—while at some points they seem highly constrictive, at other points, it is as if they do not exist. July makes it clear early on in the film that in her eyes, without traveling, seeing the world, and moving past borders, one is dull, unenlightened, and unknowledgeable. In this way, she portrays country borders as boundaries between people and potential new, illuminating experiences, constraining peoples’ characters if they are unable to pass them. Segments from The Persian Letters seem to echo this sentiment, specifically from Letter 1: “Although born in a prosperous realm, we did not believe that its boundaries should limit our knowledge.”
Though towards the beginning of Daniel and July’s trip, it seems rather easy to pass geographical borders into new countries in the EU, as the two travelers continue to move further south, border control into new countries grows increasingly strict. While this phenomenon throughout the film emphasizes the obvious physical constraints of the country borders, they also represent constraints of cultural understanding. For example, the more south Daniel moves, the more intolerant and hostile the border patrol officers act towards him after discovering he is German. This becomes most clear in Turkey, when the patrol officer automatically assumes him and Isa are terrorists or satanists, refusing to believe that Daniel truly had his passport stolen and sending him and Isa to jail.
While the jail in Turkey represents the most literal sense of strict borders, the interaction that unfolds between Daniel and Isa represents a complete collapse of metaphorical borders. Despite the bars they are trapped behind, Isa completely opens up to Daniel about his family, and the two begin to share a deep personal connection. More generally, throughout the film, it seems that there are automatically no personal barriers between road travelers, given the decision by so many drivers to pick Daniel up and allow him to travel with them, seeming very willing to help him to his destination. They even seem to delve into a level of comfort with each other that would be difficult to reach with any random stranger. The caveat here is that besides Isa, the only other German in the movie, each of these drivers that Daniel lets his guard down around ends up being untrustworthy. Specifically, Leo’s sexual assault of July and Luna’s decision to drug Daniel and steal his belongings.
Perhaps In July ultimately functions as a warning to viewers regarding the EU. Indeed the film acknowledges the benefits that come with these European countries being connected, such as the importance of experiencing other cultures, travel, and political/economic connection. Yet, it also warns that the defined connection between countries via the government does not automatically lead to strong, safe, and respectful connections between the citizens of these different countries. After all, it is no coincidence that the producers chose for Daniel to get along solely with Isa and July—the only other Germans he interacted with—throughout his trip.
The director of “Edge of Heaven” has deep understanding of the complex social fiber of Turkish society. He portrays a broad range of social dynamics, such as that between men and women, Turks and Kurds, and the secular and the Islamist. The director is clearly someone with socially progressive views, and his goal is likely to critique the prevalence of misogyny, Islamism/Nationalism, and the brutal treatment of Kurds. I’ll be focusing on his depiction of Islamism in German-Turkish culture, since it’s more relevant to the present time.
We witness a bizarre scene in the intro when the dynamic between Ali and Yeter changes as soon as he realizes the prostitute is Turkish. As Ali leaves the prostitutes room, two Turkish young adults overhear him speaking Turkish. They realize also that the prostitute is Turkish. As soon as I saw their reaction, I knew it spelled trouble for Yeter. I felt distrustful of these Turks because I have an understanding that Turks in Germany are significantly more conservative than the ones in Turkey, and that’s speaking a lot because Turkey’s culture has been completely dominated by with Islamist conservative ideologies. For instance, when I saw Turks in Berlin over this winter break, I often found myself asking in my head “Are these Erdogan supporters?”
Then we see the bus scene, where those same two Turks harass Yeter and tell her to “repent.” Expectedly, they’re exactly the Erdogan-supporter types.
To draw a comparison to our political climate, we can think of Erdogan supporters like Trump supporters. But more specifically, like evangelist-type of Trump supporters. They’re not only nationalist, but also religiously fundamentalist.
As a side note, it’s interesting that level of evolution denialism in Turkey is highest in the world, and US has second highest. This correlation between proportion of fundamentalists in the population very much correlates with evolution denialism. In Turkey, this was a trend that started in the 1980’s after a military coup where the state decided to promote Islamism for the purpose of national unity. To be clear though, the fundamentalist dogma pervasive in Turkish society roots back to the early 1900’s during the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Turkey’s social order is completely different in the present day than it was in 2007, when this film was made. Everyone is super tense about doing anything that would offend Erdogan or the ruling party, as doing so means that you might be labeled a Gulenist and thrown in jail on charges of working for a terrorist organization. Although this film was made much before Islamism became the dominant social order, the director had the foresight of focusing on its existence.
While I agree with Talha that the movie did focus heavily on the differences between German and Turkish people and their cultures, I also thought that there were a few interesting scenes that showed the unity and commonalities between the two. For example, when Nejat and Charlotte’s mom are speaking about them both knowing the Tale of Abraham and Isaac, it’s the first real similarity shown in the film. This shared piece of religion among the multitude of differences depicted between the two cultures showed an optimistic ray of light for integration between them. The scene with the caskets being shipped the same way from German to Turkey and vice versa, showed another connection between the two differing cultures, showing that at the end everyone is the same.
The promise of admission into the EU was continually thrown out as a solution throughout this film. The first was between Charlotte’s mom and Ayten in the kitchen when discussing the social unrest in Turkey. This scene showed both the optimistic and pessimistic views of Turkey joining the EU. The other was used almost ironically used, when the German officials quoted that because Turkey was going to join the EU Ayten was not granted political asylum because she would be safe in her return. Immediate after this scene we see Ayten in jail for being part of a political revolutionary group. Obviously, Turkey, even though portrayed as basically joining the EU, still hadn’t changed its policies entirely. This showed that joining the EU was not a solution that could apply to everything and this also served the strengthen the divide between the two countries. While portraying a hope that the two cultures could come together, it also highlighted their differences; the same differences that were portrayed in the Persian Letters and have existed for many centuries.
I would like to focus this post on the interwoven, yet never realized, story lines of “The Edge of Heaven” and what that seems to implicate about Turkey’s entrance into the EU. Throughout the movie, we see Nejat in his pursuit to find Aytan, and how despite that their paths have already crossed, it is merely a lack of knowledge about each other that keeps them separate. Initially, I thought it was merely the director emphasizing the difficulty of trying to find someone when you know so little about them, yet I was struck by how Nejat, even though he is persistent in his pursuit of Aytan, only focuses on the external aspect of how to find her. Despite that Yeter told him that Aytan is studying in university, he doesn’t appear to make any effort to go beyond surface level images, such as a photo of Yeter, and do a more thorough analysis of where Aytan might be found. Even in the end of the movie, the spectator can assume that when Nejat returns from visiting, he will never know Aytan’s true identity as Yeter’s daughter as he has decided to intentionally forget about Yeter in his plans to forgive his father.
This, perhaps, parallels the nature of Turkey and the EU’s relationship. Just as Nejat wants to help Ayten, but can’t as he knows so little about her, so to does the EU want to help Turkey, but can’t do to a lack of understanding of their political and cultural tendencies. What starts off as a good intention for Nejat due to a distant tie to Yeter is forgotten over the course of a year as more pressing matters consume him, such as his father’s release back into Turkey. Similarly, the EU, from 2006-2009, considered allowing Turkey to enter the EU, but as many Member States vetoed Turkey’s application, the good intention of helping Turkey enter was lost. Instead, the EU has become much more internally focused, as Nejat becomes with his father, and chooses to look into monitoring its own affairs instead of expanding. “The Edge of Heaven,” in essence, through its lack of complete integration with its plot line, is Akin’s belief of what will happen between Turkey and the EU: they will likely never become one although they will constantly intersect due to migration. Turkey is perhaps seen as too different by the EU, and it is likely a lack of constant pursuit and understanding that ultimately separates the two entities.
Fatih Akin emphasizes, illustrates, and discusses the physical and cultural borders effectively in both In July and The Edge of Heaven.
As discussed in class, it is convenient and simple to imagine borders as homogenous. When entering a country through airports, we go through a passport control and a potential security check. However, we seem to forget that the airport borders act differently than the actual borders between countries. These actual borders may differ in requirements and level of security when entering a new country, as portrayed by Akin. For instance, in In July, the border crossings during the road trip vary significantly, which is further underlined when Daniel loses his passport. With a German passport, driving through countries in Europe is effortless, almost as if the borders do not exist. This is implicitly emphasized in the scene where Daniel discusses the travel route with July. However, upon losing his passport, Daniel encounters a challenge at seemingly every border. At the border between Hungary and Romania, Daniel bribes one of the guards and marries July in order to gain entrance. Between Romania and Bulgaria, the pair row across a river undetected. Finally, at the border entrance to Turkey, Daniel is arrested. The latter part of the journey involving the crossings therefore exemplify that border security lies on a spectrum, and borders can be perceived as liquid.
Borders are also of emphasized in The Edge of Heaven, where the journey from Germany to Turkey also takes place. However, I believe that cultural borders are more of an importance in The Edge of Heaven, especially through Ayten, Lotte, and Susanne. Susanne, a conservative German mother, judges her daughter Lotte for helping the Turkish immigrant Ayten. This judgement transitions to understanding and support, as Susanne ultimately travels to Turkey to fight for the freedom of Ayten. There she meets Nejat and realizes that they both share a connection to the story of Abraham’s sacrifice. Thus, Akin shows that cultural borders are perhaps liquid as well.
In conclusion, Fatih Akin goes beyond the initial thoughts and prejudice we may have about physical and cultural borders in the two films, and portrays how people are more alike and united than we often believe.
I agree that borders is a central theme in the two works by Fatih Akin. As we talked about in class, In July had many physical and symbolic representations of borders throughout the film. What stood out to me in Edge of Heaven however was not just the borders separating Germany and Turkey, but the objectification of Turkey. One of the early scenes of the film depicted Ali walking down the street and looking at the prostitutes. While he passed by many of the women who were out in the open and readily available, he ended up taking an interest in Yeter. Whereas all the other women were outside in plain sight, she was partially closed off in a small window, a minor border separating her from Ali. This was the first mention of Turkey, in this scene represented by a prostitute who can be bought and possibly objectified. Ali, representing Germany, and by extension, the other European Union countries, takes this idea to the extreme, becoming possessive of her, paranoid of losing her, and believing that because he has paid her that he is entitled to treat her as an object.
I think that this imagery of the European Union engulfing Turkey arose once again in a later scene when Susanne is talking to Ayten at the dining table. Ayten talks about how she does not trust the EU, evoking the scene where her mother trusts Ali and is ultimately killed for it. Later on we see another scene where it is explained that Turkey is indeed seeking entry into the EU, raising questions about the future of Turkey. I think that this waiting is conveyed in the end of the movie, where Nejat is left to wait for his father and Susanne and Ayten decide to stay in Turkey for an unknown amount of time. Tensions regarding Turkey certainly remain high, and the future is ambiguous.
Despite sharing the same director, The Edge of Heaven offers a somber and stark contrast to In July by showcasing the growing complexity in Europe and Turkey’s relationship, as well as the growing complexity when it comes to defining a strict European or Turkish identity on both personal and national/international levels.
A much more clear-cut division between Germany and Turkey is visible in In July. Looking a map, it is easy to tell that Hamburg is point A, and Istanbul, point B. The long road and extensive journey that Daniel undertakes highlight the in-between—the visible distance and separation between Germany and Turkey. And yet, in The Edge of Heaven, this distance is closed, the journey becomes less visible, and interaction and collisions on the ground by people belonging to both states are highlighted. Rather than showcasing a linear journey like Daniel and July’s, from a starting point to a destination, The Edge of Heaven features Nejat going to Istanbul, Ayten fleeing to Germany, Ayten’s deportation back to Turkey, Lotte following Ayten to Turkey, Lotte’s coffin returning to Germany, and Susanne’s arrival in Istanbul, all within the span of less than two hours.
For hundreds of years throughout history, Turkey has often been defined as Europe’s “Other” because of its religion. The Edge of Heaven, however, convolves the Turkish and German identity, questioning the distinction between the two. This is best exemplified in the exchange between Nejat and the owner of the bookstore, when the bookshop owner summarized Nejat’s identity as a “Turkish professor of German from Germany,” who ended up “in a German bookshop in Turkey.” This intersection of identity is especially relevant, considering that, since the Gastarbeiter began to arrive in Germany in the 1960s and 70s, now, there is a second generation of Turkish people in Germany like Nejat who grow up having to straddle both their Turkish and German identity.
Throughout the movie, we see both Turks, Germans, and Turkish-Germans wrangle with their identities and what it means to be either or both Turkish and German. Yet, on a bigger scale, the movie also explores the way through which Turkey and Europe wrangle with their identities on a national and international scale as well. This is most visible in the scene when the decision to deport Ayten was made. Here, the officials cited, “In light of Turkey’s plans for membership in the EU,” it can “no longer be assumed” that Ayden must fear “physical maltreatment”, “torture,” or restriction to her freedom upon returning to Turkey; thus, her appeal for asylum in Germany cannot be granted. In other words, despite many Europeans’ historical and persisting idea of Turkey as antagonistic to Europe itself, because of Turkey’s plans to join the EU, this perspective is being re-negotiated, perhaps unwillingly. With the political climate of Turkey in 2007, which was ripen with tension between the secular military and a presidential candidate and party with Islamic roots, coupled with Turkey’s continued difficulties in its bid to join the EU, Turkey and Europe were constantly redefining their relation and perspectives on one another and on their own identities. These become powerful and apparent conflicts explored in The Edge of Heaven, and remain this negotiation and re-negotiation of Europe and its Other remains relevant today.
The film, “The Edge of Heaven” felt like an opposite tale from “In July.” I say this because both films relied on coincidence in almost completely different ways. “In July” is a series of coincidences bringing about love. Whereas “The Edge of Heaven” is a series of so-close to perfect meetings that weren’t meant to be leading to death and grief, though some good does still come out in the end. There is a substantially more serious tone to “The Edge of Heaven” contrasting the lighthearted “In July.”
One of the more political scenes of The Edge of Heaven occurs after Lotte is killed and the cops tell Ayten that Germany is breathing down their neck looking for answers, so they need Ayten’s cooperation. This is revealing of the dynamic in Turkey at the time, which was seeking entry into the European Union. There is still a tension in Turkey about even joining Turkey as evidenced by Ayten’s argument with Lotte’s mother in which Ayten claims not to trust the European Union. It is interesting how Lotte’s mother seems to think Turkey joining the EU would fix Turkey’s ailments.
A lot of characters in the film seem to be chasing after what they can’t find or deeply committed to some cause only to realize they don’t give a damn. Nejat’s father wants to cure his loneliness, so he pursues Yeter, yet that doesn’t fill the void that is existence and he continues drinking his life away even after Yeter moves in. Worse yet, he gets so caught up in worry that his son is sleeping with her that he can’t even enjoy her presence. And then he kills her. So he was pretty unsuccessful in that regard. Nejat moves to Istanbul to find Yeter’s daughter only to fail and realize he likes going on joyrides in Turkey and owning a wee bookshop. Ayten is so committed to her resistance movement until she suddenly isn’t and turns on them to get out of prison. Lotte is committed to Ayten until she isn’t cause she’s dead. And poor Loote’s mother is committed to stability? Until her daughter dies and she decides to radically change her life and move to Istanbul and adopt Loote’s aim of helping Ayten. Anyway, seemingly everyone has goals in this movie that start out very different form where they end up or that end in tragedy such as Lotte’s death. Maybe this is related to Turkey’s ascension to the EU. I don’t really know, but food for thought maybe. Also feeds into how coincidences almost bring everything into alignment so that Yeter meets Ayten, or Ayten meets Nejet, but just barely not quite. Similarly, so many characters seek what they seemingly won’t achieve for the most part, yet a few of them find meaning in unexpected places despite the many failures and tragedies along the way. This cycle of rediscovery of identity and meaning in life is intriguing. Nejet finds himself more suited to running a bookshop in Istanbul than being a German professor. Loote’s mother rediscovers her inner hippie after Loote’ death. Even Nejet’s father seems to find some solace in Turkey where he takes up fishing. Sorry for the rambling paragraph!
Anyway, the identities of these characters appear in flux at times similar to Turkey’s identity. That seems perhaps intentional.
The films, Im Juli and The Edge of Heaven, by Fatih Akin exhibit similarities and differences, especially regarding the way trust is explored in relation to the European Union and its influence compared on the characters compared with that of Turkey. It is first notable that German characters in both films who appear to have little to no negative feelings toward the EU have an inherent trust of its processes and ability to maintain safety and justice. In Edge of Heaven, Lotte’s mother strongly exudes this notion when she refuses to hear arguments from Ayten against the union, and does not appreciate her anti-globalization and anti-Northern European sentiments. There is a hint of this same idea layered in Im Juli when Daniel explains that he would prefer to travel through Italy and take the ferry to Turkey rather than travel through nations which, at the time the movie was filmed in 2000, were only just applying to become part of the European Union. Here, his inherent trust of the Union and potential distrust of “the other” is partially exposed. This notion goes hand-in-hand with Ayten’s distrust of the EU in Edge of Heaven as a group of colonial powers pushing for ideologies that the Turks do not agree with. A lesser but still notable amount of uneasiness and distrust is felt by Isa, a Turk, in Im Juli which in turn causes him to take his uncle’s corpse back to Turkey rather than risk facing distrust and punishment by German authorities.
The two films have both obvious and subtle differences in mood. The optimism in Im Juli can be seen ultimately as a function of the film’s resolution – the positive outcome of the four characters coming to an end of their journeys creates a happy ending. Oppositely in Edge of Heaven, both Lotte and Nejat’s Papa are going back to their country of origin in worse condition than before; dead and imprisoned then deported. Lotte’s mother is in mourning, Ayten in also mourning and no closer to revolution. These events and lack of ‘happy ending’ result in a darker mood.
A subtler difference in the films relates to the understanding of borders and a comparison of the European Union to ‘its other’. In Im Juli, Isa tells the truth about his journey and Uncle’s body to the Turkish border security. They let him through, signaling their trust of him and the representation of Turkey as a place of sanctuary and resolution. This contains within it a point of irony, wherein the EU is the space which is looking to be escaped from in favor of ‘the other’. Similarly for Daniel, Turkey represents a place of love and full-circle symbolic, astrological, and literal conclusion. The Edge of Heaven has a more nuanced image of the two spaces, as Germany represents a place of security for characters who are non-Turkish citizens, while it represents a place of betrayal and disgust for both Ayten and Nejat, respectively. However on the other hand, Turkey is equally mixed, as it is in general described as a place of violence and unrest in general, but also of resolution for Lotte’s mother and Nejat.
These films, if made in 2018, would not contain the same tensions as are portrayed in the plots through color imagery – the red, yellow, and blue of Edge of Heaven, and opposing darkness and sunshine in Im Juli – as well as dialogue and representation of border crossings. These tensions would be lessened, and stakes decreased, indicating that the spreading union would act as a pacifier in some respects, and an agent of further unrest and confusion in others.
In the opening scene of In July, there is a solar eclipse. At first, I found it very odd that the movie opened with some strange man (with a body in his trunk) staring up at a solar eclipse, but then we met Daniel and heard his story. We then see the solar eclipse scene from his point of view, and then it made a lot more sense. In astrology, a solar eclipse means a new beginning is coming. It is a time of self-reflection and finding oneself, discovering who you want to be. The significance and symbolism of the solar eclipse are reoccurring narrative motifs throughout different parts of the movie.
In the beginning, it is foreshadowing of what is to come, the solar eclipse coupled with the notion of a road movie lets the viewer know that it will be a movie that narratively is about self-discovery. Once as Daniel retells his journey that includes bar fights to defend a woman’s honor, getting high for the first time, having his possessions stolen, and falling in love, the viewer sees him transform from a rigid and controlled person to a fun and free man. Through that transformation, he loses parts of himself, chief of which were his glasses and his watch, reflecting his formation into a new person. Once the viewer is beginning to see his transformation, we see the scene with the solar eclipse through his perspective, and its inclusion becomes a lot clearer. He was starting his new beginning. This even includes more than his personality changes; it also includes the new path he is taking on his search for love. He is no longer searching for Melek (though how awkward would that have been if he was to interrupt the date between Melek and İsa), but instead he will be under the bridge over the Bosporus waiting for Juli.
In both the films by Fatih Akin, borders and separation between peoples are emphasized, especially between Turkey and other European nations. This separation is not merely physical, as the cultural differences between Europeans tend to formulate their opinions in both In July and The Edge of Heaven.
Borders, in these films, are represented both directly and symbolically. In In July, Daniel is faced with many borders on his journey. From Having to bribe officials, to literally crossing a river, Daniel has a difficult time traveling across Europe without his passport, despite it usually not being a problem for most German citizens. Finally, his arrest at the Turkish border fully displays this separation. Throughout European history, Turkey has always been somewhat ostracized because it is an Islamic nation. While the majority of Europe is Christian, the Turkish have been seen as the “other” for a while. This signifies that despite the formation of a European Union, there are still problems in uniting Europe and in the Maastricht Treaty’s execution, as Turkey still struggles to enter the union.
Moreover, in Edge of Heaven, the separation of cultures is even more emphasized. Often times characters are ashamed of their nationality or religion. They battle with who they are and often times put a facade on for others to see. For example, in the beginning scene when Ali seeks a prostitute, he suspects she is Turkish. However, at first she is ashamed to admit this fact and goes by the name of Jesse. There are moments of intertwining of cultures as well. The Turkish/German professor of German is a prime example of such mix. While this combination seems peculiar, his character serves as a bridge between the two cultures. As the storyline progressed, the movement of characters from one nation to another displays the challenges they face when in a foreign nation with a foreign culture.
In both films the disparity between mainstream Europe and its “other” are on full display. Cultures and borders separate them and often times result in terrible outcomes. The EU was designed to prevent this, but if certain nations cannot get a bid, it defeats the purpose and goal of the EU to create a balanced Europe.
I found it interesting that both The Edge of Heaven and In July were directed by the same director. Both deal with similar themes – borders, national/cultural identity and language/communication, and are similar in that they are “road films” depicting journeys between Turkey and Germany. In July is a lighter film and comes across as optimistic in the context of what we have been talking about in class, whereas The Edge of Heaven struck me as dark, negative and pessimistic about some of the topics we have been discussing. However, I do want to focus on one observation I made that was puzzling to me pertaining to borders/geographic location specifically.
In the beginning of The Edge of Heaven I was having trouble discerning whether or not the film was presently taking place in Germany or in Turkey. I think that this was intentional on Akin’s part, as he country. He juxtaposes characters of German and Turkish nationalities, sometimes showing them speak German and other times showing them speak Turkish. Having only Turkish/Middle Eastern sounding music for this part of the film (and the rest of the film for that matter) contributes to the uncertainty about the setting. In comparison, in In July it was abundantly clear when the characters were in Germany and when they were in Turkey.
I found this interesting because in a more optimistic film like In July one might expect there to be uncertainty about where setting is, symbolic of people of different national identities overcoming borders and coexisting, and in a pessimistic, more negative film like The Edge of Heaven one might expect it to be very clear about where the film is taking place, symbolic of the insurmountability of both borders and differences in national and cultural identities.
I am not sure why Akin made these decisions regarding clarity of setting in his films and am very curious to hear what you all think.