When Turkish cinema historiography examples are examined, it is understood to be inadequate, at least controversial, in terms of conformity with scientific research and method criteria. Due to the fact that historical studies are based on subjective or political perspectives rather than seeking the necessary scientific method, it is seen that even in the determination of the beginning year of Turkish cinema history, contradictory results were encountered and consensus could not be reached. It is thought-provoking that most of the examples of macro historiography, written by people outside the academic environment, are accepted by academicians without filtering the criteria of scientific criticism and no alternative contributions are provided to the field. The most obvious example that stands out in this framework is the problem of peri- odicizing Turkish cinema history. The subjective periodicity approach first time proposed in the Turkish Cinema History book, which was written by Nijat Özön, published in 1960, has been accepted without question by the authors, critics and the rele- vant academic environment of the field, and has been repeated without a scientific criticism filter. This study, which feels the need to address this problem at last, discusses the emerging situation within the framework of comparative history reading and proposes an alternative understanding of periodicity in accordance with the scientific criteria required for writing history.
This question, which has been waiting for 65 years and has not been a subject of research until today, should finally be discussed and judged in accordance with scientific criteria. For this, academic studies should focus primarily on examples that are accepted as the basic works of Turkish cinema history, and the understanding of historiography that constitutes an obstacle to holistic approaches should be critically evaluated. Such an effort necessitates first the deconstruction and finally the reconstruction of the current historiography.
It is essential that the efforts to create a language of cinema theory and criticism take precedence over the examples of historical narration. It is imperative that alternative historiography, which will replace the current romance narration, start from the basic questions that will qualify the historical perspective.
Undoubtedly, the question of what cinema is, stands at the beginning of the most fundamental issues in alter- native cinema history writing. The historian must first determine the aesthetic-ethical, ontological and phenomenological foundations of the debate, starting from the question of what is film. This is the only way to find an answer to the question of how the historical course of the basic features that determine the film’s characteristics took place. The relations between the aesthetic history of the film, its claim to artistic identity, its narrative features and perception can only be judged in this way. The historian should also question the relationship between the aesthetic and ethical history of the film and processes of social transformation, cultural, economic, political and technological developments. Of course, this questioning must take into account the relationship between the aesthetic and ethical history of the film and other branches of art and thought movements.
Film is undoubtedly primarily a unique medium. Like any medium, the development history of the film is related to the development processes of other mediums. In this context, the history writer must question the mutual relationship between film and other different media. This questioning must take into account the relationship of the film with scientific and technological developments.
In order for the history writer to find competent answers to all these questions, his research understanding and rea- soning methods must change. Considering the complex relationships of developmental processes, the history writer should abandon one-sided document research and turn to interdisciplinary approaches and meta-theories with a holistic, multi-lay- ered and multi-faceted perspective. In this context, it is essential to recognize the inadequacy of chronological historiography, abandon efforts to legitimize subjective perspectives, support alternative historiography efforts, consolidate cooperation be- tween experts in different disciplines, and above all, solve the language problem that constitutes an obstacle to historical and period studies.
