The emergence of Meddah shows, which are one-man shows, dates largely from the fourteenth century.106 Meddah was a storyteller who narrated various heroic, religious or fairytale stories by imitating different characters. Meddahs
performed such stories by imitating diverse accents or dialects with simple tools like a stick and a napkin used for various purposes. The sticks were utilized to make different sounds such as knocks on the doors, men in fights, or the walk of an old woman.107 The napkins could be used as a veil for mimicking a lady or for depicting a sad situation when the character cries. Accordingly, and obviously, such props were used to draw the audience into the story. Meddahs created illusion and the feeling of wonder through the help of sudden disguises, through mimicry and by impersonating other people’s voices, dialects and gestures. Meddahs’ skills of mimicking different personalities were so powerful that it is even said that in the
105 Ercument Ekrem Talu, ‘Orta Oyunu’, in Orta Oyunu Kitabi, ed. Abdulkadir Emeksiz (Istanbul:
Kitabevi Yayınları, 2001), pp. 218-221.
106 Ozdemir Nutku, ‘XIV. Yuzyildan Bu Yana Buldugumuz Meddahlar’, in Meddah Kitabi, ed. Unver
Oral (Istanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları, 2003), 100-106 (p. 100).
107 Ref’i Cevat Ulunay, ‘Ramazan ve Eski Meddahlar’, in Ramazan Kitabi, ed. Ozlem Olgun
seventeenth century when a meddah was narrating adventures of two characters in constant arguments, the audience divided and started quarrelling as each group took the side of one of the two different characters.108 Similar to the Transformation by
Hats (1895) by the Lumière Brothers, meddah shows offered the sudden
transformation of one actor to keep the audience’s attention, with one theatrical difference (meddahs would often directly speak to the audience).
Meddah stories, unlike Orta Oyunu and Karagöz, were based on strong lines
of action rather than a collage of various short stories or amusing dialogues. However, such characteristics may not be entirely sufficient to indicate that there was spectator identification. The lack of identification may be accounted for by the
meddahs’ storytelling style. During the shows they occasionally stopped the line of
action; on one occasion they could relate the recipe of some good dish they had recently tasted; on another they could mention the benefits of waking up early or sometimes they would talk about the new fashions in the city.109 Such additional information played no role in furthering the narrative. One possible function of these irrelevant details could be that they aided the delay of development of the action (and accordingly the pleasure of a plot resolution) in order to increase the tension or provoke audience curiosity. Meddahs also made direct references to the audience watching the shows, which could be considered another way of illusionary mimicking. He might have apologized to the audience, for example, for his imitations of different dialects or accents, in case he might have offended some ethnic groups.110
The cosmopolitan elements of the shows could be observed in the variety of characters. The meddahs had the skills to speak like a gentleman, an Arab, an
108 Metin And, ‘Meddah, Meddahlik, Meddahlar’, in Meddah Kitabi, ed. Unver Oral (Istanbul:
Kitabevi Yayınları, 2003), 3-18 (p. 4).
109 Ibid. 110 Ibid.
Armenian, a Circassian, a Frenchman, a Jew, a Kurd, a Turk or an old woman and so on.111 Yet, what is more striking is that the meddah could imitate different ethnicities merely by wearing different hats synonymous with certain types of ethnic groups or by changing his accent. Such a minimalist style along with a powerful mimicry may not sound cinematic, yet in some foreign travellers’ diaries it appears that the shows did not rely heavily on dialogue. Even though the travelers spoke no Turkish they could follow the storylines and enjoyed the shows.112 The stories are strikingly rich in plots; one story might have taken place in many different parts of the world and might have included various short stories. One of the shows recorded by John Auldjo is as follows:
‘At Home’ with a series of imitations, in which he personated a Turk from Aleppo. This Oriental John Trot, is represented as setting out on his journey to see the world and making his fortune, and with this intent, he visits various places. On one occasion, being mistaken for a Pasha in disguise, he is every where feasted and treated with the most respectful attention, until, the real truth being discovered, he is impersonated, spit upon, plucked by the beard, and in short, maltreated in a thousand different ways. At last he finds his way to Stamboul, and manages to obtain an interview with his Sublime Highness; after which he visits England, France, etc. and on his way back is taken by a pirate, who carries him to the coast of Africa. During this compulsory voyage, he describes himself as affected with the most horrible seasickness; and here his representation of a person labouring under that detestable malady was so accurate, that I almost fancied myself again in the cockpit of the Actaeon, and all the terrors of the voyage across the Adriatic arose fresh to my imagination. After many adventures he returns safe to Aleppo, his native city, no richer than he set out… 113
Such a story can be considered cinematic since it jumps from one scene to another and depicts an almost visual journey full of adventures. In another story that is perhaps even more (pre-)cinematic, a young man falls in love with a woman he
111 Ozdemir Nutku, ‘Meddahlik Olgusu’, in Meddah Kitabi, ed. Unver Oral (Istanbul: Kitabevi
Yayınları, 2003), 41-53 (p. 43).
112 Metin And, History of Theater in Turkey, p. 29. 113 Cited in, Ibid.
sees in a panorama. This also demonstrates a self-referential characteristic where one pre-cinematic source refers to another.114