| Summary/Abstract |
The Turkish TV dramas Magnificent Century and Resurrection Ertuğrul share a number of traits: Both reprise the country’s Ottoman (or proto-Ottoman) past by focusing their story on a heroic figure; both raised the ire of critics for their lack of historicity; and both have been highly successful, ruling ratings on the same competitive Wednesday night prime time slot, with Resurrection coming in to take Century’s place after that show left the air. Despite these similarities, the projects represent quite different takes on the Ottoman past and the issue of history’s role in the Turkish present. While Century arguably partakes in what Svetlana Boym calls reflective nostalgia, Resurrection is a highly restorative project. In this article, I detail the differences between these projects and explain their success in light of the shifting political environment in Turkey. I begin with a characterization of Century and the ‘problem’ it posed for a conservative government that was deeply invested in an idealized Ottoman past. I next turn to Resurrection, which I see as a government reaction to Century, and explain that it succeeds where other imitators failed due to the careful choice of a hero with a relatively blank historical slate. Finally, I argue that Resurrection practices a different attitude toward history than does Century, heralding for a government that not only seeks to glorify and idolize the past, but also to claim ownership of it.
|